I will protect trans people in single-sex spaces row, new human rights chair says

[IwantToRetire]

Meanwhile, Stephenson said the commission had, under her predecessor Kishwer Falkner, given “legally sound” guidance to the UK Government on single-sex services and were awaiting ministers’ responses.

The Government has said it will not be rushed in publishing an updated code of practice which will be used by businesses and other organisations to inform their provision of single and separate-sex services such as toilets and changing rooms.

The guidance requires ministerial approval and would only come into force 40 days after the Government had laid the draft code in Parliament.

Asked if she would be prepared to accept changes to the draft, Stephenson said: “We’ve made the draft, and we think that it’s legally sound on the basis of extensive legal advice, and we provided it to Government.

“Government obviously has to assure themselves that they’re confident that it’s legally sound, and they’re doing that, and we’re really happy to provide them with any evidence that they need in order to do that.

“We’re waiting to hear back from them about their views on the guidance.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/protect-trans-people-single-sex-050000412.html

This is just one of the many articles that have been written based on an interview by PA. Each one has a slightly different slant depending of which paper it is published in.

Does she know what a single sex space means?

Does she know what sex is?

Did you read the article?

After all this time surely users of FWR know that headlines are click bate.

The point of posting links to articles isn't just the context but how the media goes our of its way to misrepresent.

ie why did this newspaper choose that headline, and does it actualy reflect what she said, and if not why would they do that.

She said “I think it’s really important when we’re looking at this issue around single-sex spaces, to make sure that you also protect the rights of trans people. And yes, I will endeavour to do that.” That is unspecific. She could protect the rights of trans people by saying they need third spaces. Plus, she said "ALSO the rights of trans people", so she is clearly intending to protect women's rights too.

It's very vague, it could mean protecting their right to be in correct sex toilets.

I am not so sure she does mean that, but she isn't nailing her colours to the mast, in any case.

@IwantToRetire Like you say it is click bait she did not say that at all

Trans people do have rights and deserve to have them protected, just like others who have rights. For example, the right not to be persecuted for being trans, just as a Christian or Hindu etc has a right not to be persecuted for being christian or Hindu.

Trans rights do not include, in UK law, the right to single-sex provisions and services that are for the opposite sex to what you are, however you identify. People get confused (and deliberately misled) into thinking “Trans rights” means “the right to be considered the opposite sex from what you are and to take things that are exclusively for that sex”. When you are not allowed those things, it is legal discrimination on the basis of sex, not discrimination against you for being trans.

It’s totally reasonable to protect the rights of trans-identifying people. They include for example the rights of trans men to single-sex services in maternity care. As well as protection from harm from actual transphobic persecution. But trans people do not have a right to be seen as a protected category they do not belong to. Just like no one else does.

In other words I’m sure she knows what she’s saying, but a lot of other people don’t. Newspapers to twist and misrepresent, but huge numbers of supposedly intelligent and informed people including journalists, politicians and academics, don’t understand that “trans rights” does not mean “the right to be treated as what you say you are”.

It's also possible she is being vague on purpose.

As in transvestites can use the mens in complete safety. All for it though not womens problem. Or masculinised women are not mistaken as men in the ladies.

I may get deleted for this but i do not give an actual flying fuck about trans peoples rights because they do not give a shiny shit about women.

I'd be a big fan of trans people getting exactly the rights that are specified for them according to the law.

I've not read the article.

To transpeople, their rights and no more.
To women, our rights and no less.

I think it’s more that she’s being specific on purpose, because it’s important that she does understand and protect everyone’s rights, and she needs to make that clear as well as actually doing it, because of the propaganda that protecting sex-based rights is “taking something away” from trans people.

The reason “trans rights” is vague is because it’s been so successfully lied about and so many people misunderstand what it means. I wish the government would stand up and spell this out. And any organisation that provided “training” and materials that lied to employers and institutions about what rights trans people have should be prosecuted or at the very least disbanded and made to pay back any money they charged for spreading lies.

I wish I had your optimism. But after the shock and let down that is Briggite Phillipson, it's 'once bitten twice shy', to me. I genuinely would not be surprised if Stephenson turned out to be a sleeper for TRAs, as well. Nothing would surprise me. Some are naive, but I'm jaded and expect nothing good from her, sadly. Nothing would make me happier though to be wrong, of course. Pray and wish that I'm wrong for me.

ETA: sorry, I meant to quote-reply to @WhatterySquash , my apologies.

I am optimistic overall, because IME reality has a way of outlasting whatever woo comes along and the more harmful and ludicrous the woo, the more sure it is to come and go. I am 100% sure it will go.

But it is a really stubborn and successful load of woo, and I am also repeatedly shocked and stunned by how gullible and misogynist so many people have been, and how long it’s taking for the bleeding obvious to sink in. So I can totally understand feeling cynical and despairing too and I often do.

100%! Stuff them.

Happy new year 😁

I don't see the problem, with the interview, the article, or the headline. I wonder if some of you are reading the headline as saying "I will protect trans people in single-sex spaces"? What it actually says is that she will protect them in the row about single-sex spaces. This is just a headline-speak condensation of her statements to the effect that the EHRC will be acting for the rights of all protected groups. The very fact that, as she says, the guidance is 'legally sound' in its exclusion of people from opposite-sex spaces entails a need to ensure that trans people are adequately catered for in some other way. She is simply acknowledging this
Who would want her to say anything different?

I have some sympathy regarding this. Had the government of the time not ignored the issue, it would not have needed the Supreme Court decision, and the number of people born male but using or wishing to use female spaces would by now be far less. Perhaps the row would be less.

Third spaces I support.

Nor do I. New Years resolution - I'm not going to pretend to care about them and their 'struggles', Women and Children first, anyone else a long second.

Seems like MAS is going to advocate for third spaces. We know how much TRAs love that solution.

The problems are the GRA and PC of GR, not toilets and changing rooms.

What is different between men with a gender identity and men without? The GRA says that one group should be treated as if they are female, or at least that they aren't male. But the difference is only what they claim to feel.

At best, policy makers are basically trying to make it make sense, more likely creating work for themselves.

Seems like MAS is going to advocate for third spaces. We know how much TRAs love that solution

Exactly, the solution is pointless and just a waste of time and money.

The GRA says that one group should be treated as if they are female, or at least that they aren't male. But the difference is only what they claim to feel.

I think this is the root of the problem - the GRA doesn't make sense in any way, but particularly in the context of equality legislation.

What is the legal context for treating somebody differently because they are male or female that has nothing to do with sex?

They are already safe in their own single sex spaces, if anything happens do what women have always had to do and call the police. At least they will get someone showing up.

I’d like to see some actual figures of how many trans identified men (while being gussied up) have been assaulted, etc, while using the men’s room. 🤨
Cos, I reckon it’s a big fat zero.