EHRC consultation feedback guidance from Transactual

[TangenitalContrivences]

https://transactual.org.uk/equality-act-campaign/responding-to-the-ehrc-consultation/

One great gem:

"A key point here is that the Code gives no indication at all of how women- or men-only associations that wish to be trans inclusive can do so.
This would include:

• A men-only club or association that wishes to include trans men (though not cisgender women)
• A women-only club or association that wishes to include trans women (though not cisgender men)
• A lesbian-only club or association that wishes to include trans women
• A club or association only for gay men that wishes to include trans men

"

The guidance to the law gives no indication of how we can break the law.

Sad face.

(Serious answer is - be inclusive. Stop trying to exclude "cisgender" people. You're only going to fall foul of anti-discrimination law when you discriminate.)

So it’s basically whack-a-mole but for gender ID then? The SC says one thing then up pops some bright spark weaseling (mole-ing?) their way round it

Their homophobic needs are probably catered for under the protected characteristic of philosophical belief if the group all believes in gender woo.

I think the important thing is that they can’t claim to be a eg Lesbian group if they’re including men, so it’d have to be named to reflect that it’s not a lesbian group, just a group for people attracted to feminine-gender-essence (or certificates).

‘Trans women who are able to breastfeed can access pregnancy and maternity protection?

The Equality Act says no.

''men cannot claim privileges for women connected with pregnancy or childbirth.''
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/2/1/1

Yes, it is difficult to explain how a society would be able to exclude a group of people who can’t be objectively defined.

However I don’t think that is a legal problem.

Agree - and I don’t think this is a problem, as long as lesbian groups can exclude men from their groups.

You can have any of those organisations! They just can't claim to be women-only or men-only, or lesbian or gay men only. They would have to be clear that they included people of the opposite sex as well, or people who are not lesbians or gay men.

Conversely, you can also lawfully have groups that are genuinely single sex, women or men only, or lesbian or gay men only, and that is ok too. It's not unlawful.

The definition of women and men is by biological sex. The definition of lesbian and gay is same sex attraction. From these two facts, all else shall flow naturally and logically.

Surely they just need to frame their groups/gatherings as “queer” and open to either sex? Then they just become interest gatherings where people can freely express their personal feelings about gender. They can also say they’re queer femme (but mixed sex) gatherings, or queer masc (but mixed sex) gatherings. Hell, add “trans-affirmative” to the description, too. Why not?

They’re just not single sex gatherings, and I fail to see a problem for their organisers or attendees as they don’t want single sex gatherings in the first place!

I assume a "queer" gathering would be mostly spicy straights, but Pride has gone a long way towards that already.

Once the definitions are clear, it really becomes a trade descriptions issue. If a young lesbian wants to go to a lesbian dating night, she needs to know whether or not there will be penis people involved.

If a young woman with an interesting hair colour wants to be pansexual, she can go to as many trans-inclusive queer dating events as she likes, they just can't advertise as lesbian events.

I think this is where they are helped by the fact that gender identity isn’t a protected characteristic.

They just have to be careful that they aren’t discriminating against anyone on the basis of sex or sexuality.

I think that if group 1 is an identitarian grouo for people who identify as male that’s ok? I think it’s fine to have a society for people who share a belief? They would just have to make this all clear to avoid discrimination claims.

My understanding is that no, they can't have any of those groups

• A men-only club or association that wishes to include trans men (though not cisgender women)
• A women-only club or association that wishes to include trans women (though not cisgender men)
• A lesbian-only club or association that wishes to include trans women
• A club or association only for gay men that wishes to include trans men

Because you can't include one type of biological male/female while excluding another.

You can't say yes to transwomen but no to other men. Or yes to transmen but no to other females

Up until recently lesbian discos in my area were 'no men' but inclusive of transwomen 'lesbians'.
I haven't checked what the situation is since the SC ruling but if they continue in the same fashion, my understand is that this will fall foul of the law.

Well forced myself to read their contribution to the consultation.

They actually said in their opening gambit that there is no clear understanding of the meaning of biological sex, and go on to say that one can change ones chromosomes.

Everything after that flows from that belief, and that no body can tell what a persons (none existent) biological sex is anyway.

One for the bin i would imagine.

Also if i am running a women’s Refuge service and a biological male applies to be accommodated, all i would have to say to them (privately and super sensitively of course), is, sorry i believe you are biologically male, if however, i am incorrect you are free to provide evidence that you were born a female.

Not difficult IMHO

Operation “let them speak” continues to do our work for us

Chuffing clowns 🤡

• When members of the public enter a business or public service, at what point should staff check the sex of their customers and clients? Should this be at reception, when being seated at a table, outside the toilets, or other?

Are Transactual imagining same sex restaurants, with genital inspection? Their concocted outrage is like a fever dream.

@Bannedontherun I haven't read it. Do they explain exactly how one changes their chromosomes? I clearly missed that class

Someone has been watching too much sissy porn.

Agreed, it’s not that difficult to understand. Those who disagree with the judgement are just trying to over complicate to make a point.

A kitting group can be open to everyone, but is likely to be self selecting so it’s primarily women who attend, although Tom Daley etc. would be more than welcome to attend.

The Code indicates it is likely to be lawful to include an accompanied male child in a women’s changing room because he does not pose a safety risk. Given this, why can trans women not be similarly included, given that there is no evidence that their inclusion poses a safety risk either? Trans women have been using gender-aligned services with the support of the law for decades and there is no evidence of an increased safety risk from this practice.

Transactual seem to be going for Buzzword Bingo here.

Do they not remember that single-spaces worked just fine before GI showed up?

Do they not know that we can tell, almost all the time, who is a man and who is a woman? Do they not remember how men used the men's loos and women used the women's, unless in a small facility with one shared loo? And that men invading the women's could be, and usually were, challenged, by both women and men? Do they not know that it has never, ever, been necessary for staff to check the sex of customers when they approach reception (unless maybe you're running a sauna or the like), or when they sit down at tables?

Are they living in some kind of mental fog? Have they lost their minds?

why can trans women not be similarly included, given that there is no evidence that their inclusion poses a safety risk either?

They don't read the news, do they?