Islington Council slams 'botched' single sex spaces guidance

[IwantToRetire]

The council argues that the new guidance, which suggests that staff should check a person’s sex at birth before granting access to single-sex services or spaces, is unworkable and risks breaching individuals’ privacy and exposing them to harassment.

"Expecting reception staff in a busy leisure centre or a domestic violence service to determine whether someone is trans, without subjecting them to harassment or breaching their right to privacy, is not practical.

"It risks legal confusion and a culture of suspicion.

"That’s why we have called for the EHRC to pause this botched process – properly listening to trans communities – rather than simply causing further confusion."

Full article at https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/25283099.islington-council-slams-botched-single-sex-spaces-guidance/

🤣

You've got to remember to bigly the emojis.

😁

.

I can’t either!

No. I can’t either.
It makes me sad.

@AidaP:

I don’t see that in T.H. the court considered the issue of a trans person disclosing their trans status as part of their ID when entering a specifically single-sex service.

In most cases sex or reassigned gender isn’t relevant when proving identity, so it would be an unwarranted privacy issue to require it to be disclosed in such a situation. When you go into a dress shop you shouldn’t need to prove your age. It would be a privacy breach for the shop to require you to reveal it. But when you go into an off licence, being asked to prove your age is appropriate and lawful. I’m sure you see the parallel.

The T.H. Judgment includes this paragraph:

“ At the same time, it shows respect for the prevailing attitude of a binary approach to gender within Czech society, as referred to by the highest domestic courts (paragraphs 14 and 17 above), as well as for the rights and freedoms of others (see, for example, paragraphs 23 and 44 in fine above) within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention. In this connection, the Court notes that gender reassignment may indeed give rise to different situations involving important private and public interests (see, for example, Hämäläinen , cited above; O.H. and G.H. v. Germany , nos. 53568/18and 54741/18, 4 April 2023; and A.H. and Others v. Germany , no. 7246/20, 4 April 2023).”

Looking at the cases cited there (in all of which, I think, article 8 rights were held not to have been breached) Hämäläinen might be particularly interesting. It affirmed “There will also usually be a wide margin of appreciation if the State is required to strike a balance between competing private and public interests or Convention rights”.

Given that the exceptions to article 8 includes “in accordance with the law…to protect the rights and freedoms of others” and FWS is a UK (state) decision that upheld the right to genuinely single-sex services and associations in the UK, it’s hard to see that demanding to know someone’s biological sex in the right context would be held to be breach of article 8 and anything other that entirely proportionate and lawful.

So when you write “People really need to learn that law must be read in a full, wide, context, not just narrow passage you like and interpret the way you see fit” I agree.

We can both agree all, I think, that ECtHR decisions are not statutes that can be directly upheld in a UK court (even if there were one that had been issued precisely this topic) so appealing to anyone about ECtHR doesn’t really help.

I don't think they have the capacity.

But both the Tories and Labour have a very, very short window left to get their act together and sort this lunatic fringe out - among a lot of other acts together - before this becomes inevitable.

But you know you're a male and with all the publicity you know you now have to use the men's, if you don't it's all on you, your the one that will be in the wrong and you'll know it. So what will your excuse be?

At this point all I can think of is "but I'm a lady" in the style of David Walliams

How can you 'botch' guidance that males should use facilities designated for men, females should use facilities designated for women, and the definitions of 'male' and 'female' are the biological ones?
Not exactly rocket science, is it?

Exactly. The SC ruling is coherent, simple and very fair.

So the TRA's problem is not in fact that the ruling is botched, or complex, or unfair, although this is undoubtedly what they believe the problem is.

Their problem is that they are trying to find a reading of it that will allow them to claim it allows trans women to continue to appropriate women's rights and protections. And that is indeed complex, impossibly complex, because that reading is not there.

So they don't understand it because it doesn't include loopholes to enable them like so much up until now has done.

Their "logic" is as simple as "I can't find a way to make it say what I believe it should say or allow what I believe it should allow. Because every reading leads to a conclusion I cannot accept it would make, I conclude that I am simply unable to understand it. I conlcude that can't be implemented in practice because if it was implemented I would not get what I want and that is an unthinkable and unworkable outcome".

Agreed @FlirtsWithRhinos
It's so disappointing to see once respected councils encouraging what is in fact a mix of toddler tantrums and the coercive control / aggression / threats we're used to seeing from abusive men.

My, there seems to be a lot of entitled, creepy fucker men who 'feel like women' but aren't at all bothered at making women uncomfortable by forcing them to play along with their fantasy.

Creeeeeeepppyyyy.

And for those entitled, creepy men, here's a wee image for you to use.

Anyone notice that the man posting on this thread doesn't want to know how we think and feel?
It's not even really about working out if he has similarities with us but all about exerting control.
When he says, "you lot", he is grouping and putting down anyone who disagrees with him together. It doesn't occur to him to reflect on the disagreement as that involves facing facts: Sex change isn't real.
IRL of course women smile and nod at him, after all, no woman would risk standing up against an obviously unusual man. I wonder if he thinks they believe him?

😘

woohoo! I can see the emoji! That is awesome. Everyday is a learning day.

Read this in conjunction with some of the psychology around dysfunctional thinking, in particular the claim to not understand or to have not been told, when actually the issue is not having agreed.

In one worldview, emotion is king. Details exist to support emotion. If a member gives one set of details to describe how angry she is about a past event, and a few days later gives a contradictory set of details to describe how sad she is about the same event, both versions are legitimate because both emotions are legitimate. Context is malleable because the full picture may not support the member's emotion..... "emotion creates reality," is truth for a great many people. Not a healthy truth, not a truth that promotes good relationships, but a deep, lived truth nonetheless. It's seductive. It means that whatever you're feeling is just and right, that you're never in the wrong unless you feel you're in the wrong. For people whose self-image is so battered and fragile that they can't bear anything but validation, often it feels like the only way they can face the world.

What Can Be Done About It? Nothing. I'm sorry. When denial runs that deep, when avoidance is that in-ground, a person can't be separated from it any more than they can be separated from their bones. Their entire system of defenses is designed to make them unsavable.

In summary:

The information has been shared in understandable, comprehensible language.
The meaning was understood.
It's merely disagreed with - which is immaterial.
Saying 'I don't understand' when it means really 'I don't agree' doesn't make it go away.
Likewise, trying to make it say something else is equally pointless.

It just becomes a power struggle. 'Say what I want you to say and create my reality'.

https://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/missing-missing-reasons.html

Have to say I have not read any of this thread since about page 2.

I just dont have the time to go on a detour.

Yesterday I also posted a thread about how a catering company had written a well reasoned and workable option for commercial companies to implement the Interim Guidelines.

They seem really straightforward and not onerous.

But maybe, although it was written in a calm rational way, it is going to have to think about signs that says we expect customers and employees to observe the law ie as a user you need to be aware of the law and follow the guidelines that biological sex defines male and female and not put pressure on the work place / catering outlet to have to monitor behaviour.

ie if you cant be honest and respect the law this work place / catering outlet is not for you!

"What Can Be Done About It? Nothing. I'm sorry. When denial runs that deep, when avoidance is that in-ground, a person can't be separated from it any more than they can be separated from their bones. Their entire system of defenses is designed to make them unsavable."

I agree with this, I don't know anything about the underlying blah de blahs, but this is painfully obvious if you end up in a conversation with a 'flat earther' type. Don't bother trying, save your breath to cool your porridge because not all problems have a solution, we can't save everyone.

Oh yes, we know. It's very obvious.

It's not even that he doesn't want to know and doesn't care how we think and feel.

He doesn't conceive that we may think or feel differently to how he has decided we think and feel. Men like that already think they know everything about us so why bother wasting the time and effort listening to learn what he already knows?

And those of us that disagree, well we are just wrong. He knows why we think what we think better than we do after all. And he'll happily explain to us why our own understanding of our own lives is flawed.

@TheOtherRaven That was an interesting post about people who hear the truth but cannot accept it. Their emotion creates their world view and disagreement and criticism cannot touch them.
This part really stood out to me:
"Say what I want you to say and create my reality".
If we lie and say sex change is real, it creates a reality that works for those in denial.

The shop argues that the new guidance, which suggests that staff should prevent shoplifters from leaving the premises with stolen goods, is unworkable and risks breaching individuals’ privacy and exposing them to harassment.

Expecting security staff in a busy supermarket to determine whether someone has paid, without subjecting them to harassment or breaching their right to privacy, is not practical.

It risks legal confusion and a culture of suspicion around those people who have clearly not paid for the expensive goods stuffed up their jumpers.

That’s why we have called for the EHRC to pause this botched process – properly listening to the shoplifting community – rather than simply causing further confusion.

Exactly this.

Brilliant analogy @JamieCannister 🎯

I’m not the only one then!

pmsl, kills me when people say ‘but how am I supposed to tell’. Seriously, do the men who dress as woman genuinely think they slip right under the radar and no one can tell?!

granted, if you’ve had a TON of work and were talking 1 in 1000 there could be some doubt.

Yup, they do seem to labour under the delusion that they "pass" because they're wearing a frock/heels/lippy. They forget that men have a completely different physical frame so even if they have had extensive surgery/a lot of make-up etc, they virtually never pass as soon as anyone sees them move or hears them speak. I've seen some very beautiful and feminine drag queens and you can still tell they're biologically male.