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/

Has Sir Spamalot finished reminding us why he should stay out of women's spaces?

😂😂😂

I've seen some very beautiful and feminine drag queens and you can still tell they're biologically male.

Well, quite, Even among 'professional' drag queens, few men are even able to walk convincingly like a woman, for example.

'Tons of women misgendered'

Where is this happening? And how many women are.indicated by the use of 'tons?'
What is the source of your information ?

I'd think they all go to a different school.

We're so marginalised and oppressed, but also the public fully support us...can we please have some consistency?

You can still 'exist' in the mens toilets, there's no magical curse on the doorway that means you'll vanish in a puff of smoke. Women have rights too, I'm sorry you find that so upsetting. Actually, no, I'm not.

The women who attend (or wish they could attend) women's rights rallies have to juggle caring responsibilities and annual leave from their jobs in order to attend, while the angry, entitled men who brush off their homemade balaclavas and scrawl their violence filled messages on a dog eared piece of cardboard in their filthy bedrooms tend to have no particular responsibilities to manage.

And their signs are always shite.

Mind you, the jolly days out for the seething incels are very handy for Operation Let Them Speak.

I've particularly enjoyed the glitter and crayon happy group crafting/messy play sessions to produce messages threatening to kill people. It sums a good part of this mess up in many ways.

However the men who want non consenting women having to take their clothes off are not the ones with the glitter and the prittsticks.

To be fair, I have a female friend who is fairly masculine-presenting and she has been mistaken for a man, especially when she has short hair (it's why she now wears it long). It really upsets her.

So it does happen and not every woman can just shrug it off. But I suspect it happens nowhere near as much as our TRA friends would have us believe.

Exactly. And when it does happen, I expect, most of the time, it is usually resolved quite amicably.

Well that is not nice at all but it is the TRa fault not ours

But they’re not trying to harass you. They’re trying to have a space for themselves, same sex attracted females, absent of males. You’re the ones inserting yourselves where you’re not wanted. Build your own bloody dating sites.

This is so true, I've seen men in dresses and ignored them. While it is unusual, it doesn't affect me if they're going about their daily business.
Men going into women's spaces affects women. This is the issue all men should know and understand.

Did you mean to quote me sammy, or the person that I quoted?
Because I'm saying never happened to any great extent and only since the SC ruling are some people claiming that it does.

Even if such initiatives had potential for abuse by bad-faith actors, the correct response would have been adding measures to address it, not scrap everything.

Many groups, including natal women and girls who would have benefitted from those initiatives now can't, as they have essentially become collateral damage.

It just goes on to show that companies that pre-emptively backtracked on pro-women (especially pro-non-white-women) policies immediately after the US Presidential election or after Trump's Executive Orders were issued did not actually care about genuinely welcoming more women in the first place, otherwise they would have addressed the gender identity part but left other useful parts that helped women intact.

I thought better of my comment after posting it, and probably would have deleted it, if it were an option. FieldMarshallZukovsCoat and MerryMouse had better responses I thought.

On second thought, "collateral damage" may not have been the most appropriate term here as given how quickly those companies got rid of women-friendly measures, instead of coming up with ways to prevent natal male people with transgender identity from abusing them, the damage wrought could be actually intentional.

Yes they would have addressed the issue of men not accepting gender fluid men.

women are very accepting of gender fluid women, we all know this as women dress every which way they like and are always women.

This is an issue whereby men need to stand up loud and proud and say they accept all presentations of men, however they come.

but no. Apparently women should just be nice about it. Why Don’t You Be Nice About It?!

I am old, and now I come to think of it, I don't believe I have ever seen a transwoman in a male toilet, in a pub, or anywhere. But that's probably a reflection of the places I've lived in.

Well the official line from the Genderists is that you will have been sharing public toilets with them all your life but you would never have known because they all pass so perfectly.

More realistically, it probably is a reflection of the places that you have lived.

With my shiny new cataracts, I can assure you that my vision is 20/20. So the first is not an option! 😁

Section 28 prohibited local authorities from promoting homosexuality and banned maintained schools from teaching about homosexuality. It made no reference to transsexuals or bathrooms whatsoever.

Transexuals didn't exist at all until the 60s or 70s so the number of people who thought they were transexual in the 90s was tiny.

@PrettyDamnCosmic yes very true that the numbers were tiny. They still are. Only around 8,500 GRCs have been issued in the 20 years since the GRA. However, @AidaPclaimed transsexuals were directly attacked by Section 28, which is wrong.

Aida has no idea whatsoever. Aida wasn't affected by Section 28, but wants to tell a lot of women who were and who lived through it all about it. It's more appropriation.