Men in women’s groups.

[gingangirly]

Really unsure if I’m being unreasonable, but what do others think?

I belong to a FB group for women over 65 in my town. They have lots of get togethers, at least a couple a week. A few months ago there was a vote after a man requested to join. The overwhelming majority said no. If they want a similar group, start their own. Fair enough.

However there is a trans woman that has been welcomed with open arms. He would NOT pass as a woman, not quite a bloke in a wig but certainly you would know he was trans.

What do people think about this? Acceptable or not? I’m am totally the ‘live and let live’ but seems a bit disingenuous to ban men but not trans women?

I didn’t bring up someone trying it on. I answered someone else’s comment. That wasn’t me.

I would, as I’ve said, seek to take a club to court should they not comply with the EA in this area, if it were a club or organisation I was sufficiently invested in emotionally or that was in some other way important to me.

I would also seek to take action against the individual trans woman who was forcing their way into the space and refusing to be told no on the grounds that it constituted harassment of me under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I can empathise with feeling distrustful and scared of random men. I wasn’t fortunate enough and was sexually assaulted by a man when I was younger and it messed me up for many years. I’ve know some trans women over the years and I don’t think you can tar them all with the same brush, but a small part of me still reels uncomfortable when someone is very obviously trans

This is the post that brought up trying it on.

As you will see, I was not the poster who brought that up.

By take action against the individual trans woman I mean I would report their harassing actions of me to the police with evidence of same and ask that the police apply the law.

I would also, should they continue, apply for a stalking prevention order.

Quite. I'm in agreement with the OP, neither man should be allowed in. They rejected the first one after a vote but allowed the trans identifying in without a vote, I presume.

Harassment has to occur two or more times so you won’t have any success reporting random trans people you encounter. The trans person must also intend to cause harassment, and I don’t think a TIM using the toilet is going there specifically to make someone uncomfortable

Indeed they do have to undertake two separate instances of harassing behaviour for it to be legally actionable. I’d keep meticulous records I can assure you.

The section 1 offence is that the person must not pursue a course of conduct
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

I would inform the trans woman very clearly that their attempt to illegally enter a women’s single sex space was actions that I was deeming harassment and that I would be reporting them to the police if they continued. And I would do so.

The law says men can’t come in to women’s single sex spaces. How is not harassment of women for men to force their way into these spaces?

A reasonable person also has to consider the same actions as harassment

Given that the law has been clarified, how is it not harassment for a man to force his way into a women’s single sex space?

I won’t necessarily win - I know that. The police might decide to NFA it. The CPS might decide not to prosecute. I can’t control that. But I can - and would if it comes to it - do my best to fight it. Because otherwise the protections in the EA are pointless.

what is it with these men that they don’t understand consent and have such an issue with being told no? Why can’t they obey the law?

Because I don’t think they are doing with the intent to make anyone uncomfortable intentionally. Most people are just trying to get through their day with the least fuss possible.

The protections are not pointless. You assert your rights under the EA by taking the organisation that allowed trans people in the space to a tribunal.

I can understand why someone might not comply. If you had the right to do something and from had no problems do so, and were suddenly that right was taken away, would you comply?

If the law was clarified. And I could no longer do it? Yes of course I would stop. I would not ever break the law. Not ever.

And as you said. It’s what would a reasonable person think. So the law would have to make a determination as to whether or not it was reasonable to allow men to break the law.

I specifically made sure, for example, that my counselling group was women only prior to the case and if the decision had been the other way and men were allowed, I would have left the group. I wouldn’t have made a fuss. I would just have left.

By the way. Their right wasn’t taken away.

The law had been misapplied and they had been led to believe they had a right to be in a women’s single sex space that they never had. That is the decision of the Supreme Court. So no right was taken away, their rights and the rights of all humans in the uk to single sex spaces based on their natal sex, was clarified.

Their rights as transgender individuals remain as they were. Those rights have not been removed from them.

That’s just semantics. Is there any difference between clarification and removal to someone who can’t live their life as they used to?

You are perfectly entitled to see it as mere semantics. I don’t. I see it as the legal statement of the law.

It isn’t my problem that these men don’t like the clarification. I would advise them to campaign to attempt to change the law, as I would have done had the decision gone the other way.

So you’ve never gone over the speed limit or downloaded music or a film?

If this law is mere semantics, all laws are mere semantics and where does that leave us?

It leaves us with laws against murder. Or rape. Or drink driving. Or anything. If it is just semantics that stop individuals doing what they want to do.

And I say no. It is not mere semantics. It is the actual law.

You, of course, are free to hold a different opinion.

I didn’t say the law was semantics. I said the difference between a clarification and feeling like a right was taken away feels like semantics to the people affected

I have never gone over the speed limit and for at least the last 10 years I have used the speed limiter function in my car set to the speed limit. I have never had a speeding ticket either from a gun or a fixed camera.

I have Spotify for music which I pay for every month and I have had that since 2010 ish and before that I had iTunes and Apple Music and I don’t download any music or films other than through legal services. I have bbc, itv, channels 4 and 5, Apple paid films and music and Amazon prime.

I have already said on the thread but perhaps you missed it. I am autistic. I do not break the law. Ever.

Perhaps it does. But that is a them problem. Not a me problem.

And what if the clarification is legally wrong? Isn’t it hard to believe that since 2011 the government including EHRC believed the trans people with a GRC were their acquired sex under the EA?

If the clarification is legally wrong then I will accept that and campaign for a law change.

The issue is that the law has been clarified and men won’t accept it.

And no. I don’t find it hard to believe that the law was wrong at all. That’s intro to law 101.

If the law was wrong why did the original EHRC code take an inclusive approach? The GRA says someone acquired sex become their sex, so if the EA was meant to be an exception why wasn’t this explicit?

Might be Because the laws were wrong.

Might be Because the laws are no longer fit for purpose.

Times change. Laws change. They get clarified by judges or new goslstkin gets passed. That’s how the law works.

it doesn’t matter how the law used to be. It matters how it is now. And for right now, men can’t enter women’s single sex spaces.

And if men are upset about that that is unfortunate and they should campaign to change the law.

It could also be because the head of the EHRC allowed influence from outside the organisation to shape guidance. Or just weak leadership.

This is a statement from David Isaac who was the previous chair 2016 until 2020. He was the chair of Stonewall from 2003-2012.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/blogs/leaving-more-resilient-ehrc?return-url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.equalityhumanrights.com%2Fsearch%3Fkeys%3DTransgender%2520EA2010%26sort_by%3Dsearch_api_relevance%26page%3D4

When you think about it, how much did this chairman contribute to Stonewall’s unique interpretation of the EA2010 as they wished it was and vice versa? The appointment of chair should not be allowed to bias the interpretation of the law, yet I cannot ignore the timing of his role and the change in direction at Stonewall, the May government and that the EHRC support of that interpretation.

I read a report on the enforcement of the EA 2017-2019 (published July 2019) that that the EHRC acknowledged that single sex provision was untested by law cases. Yet, remember, Stonewall was telling organisations what their interpretation of the law was. Stonewall even had barristers such as White advising them and I remember White belabouring what ‘proportionate to the means to achieve the legitimate aim’ of single sex provisions were.

Over and over we were told directly on MN by White that there was no way to exclude male people from female single sex provisions if they had a GRC or intended to because it wouldn’t survive the test of what was proportionate or not. This was White’s line even after the Allison Bailey case (which White was very much a part of).

Was Isaac just weak in leadership in this area? Was he being influenced by the May government? Was he influenced by Stonewall? Who knows. But I believe there was little leadership by the EHRC at the time on what were the options for organisations.

Well then the people who feel their “right” was taken away should take it up with the people who told them they had that right. They never had that right. Sane people told them this. They chose to go with the people who were urging them to do what they wanted to do. Women told everyone this was causing them distress and upset. Funny how they were ignored isn’t it.