"A woman who is trans"

[AllThisFuss]

I've been noticing this terminology creeping in. Just thought I might highlight it, so we can keep up to date with their ever-changing attempts to control language and muddy the waters. Have you seen any in the wild?

IndiaWilloughby
‪@indiawilloughby.bsky.social‬
Not a mention of the woman who’s trans, who did nothing wrong. This ruling is in direct conflict with the Gender Recognition Act. How is this happening? It is wrong on every level, and will be used to push trans people even further out of society and into danger

I recommmend you read more outside your current reading list if you don’t understand why. It is very easy.

Because the rights of female people is based on sex and should not be de-prioritised to include male people at all. There is no right for a male person to access the single sex provisions of female people. There never was.

In addition, any male person accessing a female single sex provision that is designed for safety, privacy and dignity is doing so without the consent of the female people who need that space. You seem to understand this if you have followed the cases. Yet you don’t understand the basics of consent at all.

Nor the rights at the foundation of those single sex provisions.

It’s a bit like ‘woman with a trans history’ which I’m sure most of us have seen on SM. They’re just trying to make the ‘trans’ bit sound like it’s not an integral part of the definition. I have actually seen a few of them say they are ‘a woman who happens to be trans’. Like it’s just a small extra detail- a mere coincidence. 😂

Can you explain what rights a male person has to
a) womens (female) rights
b) be in what should be a female only single sex space?

The case you are referring to is Croft vs Royal Mail (2003) all the way up to the Court of Appeal, in which it was decided that Croft was not unreasonably treated when prohibited from using female toilets.

the judge send in passing that there might be occasion in future where a transexual might have completed a process that would permit the entry into a female point.

a comment in passing is called “obiter” and is not binding.

also the preceded the GRA, which also provided a section permitting discrimination on the grounds of sex under circumstances, such as privacy and dignity.

The Human rights article 8 also covers rights of privacy and dignity and gives domestic jurisdictions a wide interpretive role in rights of people, and sex based rights.

so no you are incorrect.

feel free to explore the law with me as it would be good to myth bust for you.

If your definition of the word woman is the right one, then being a woman is nothing to do with being female and female-specific rights and provisions are none of your business.

@FlirtsWithRhinos I always wondered the same thing! If gender and sex are indeed separate things, if womanhood has nothing to do with the female sex class, as TRAs are wont to claim, then why are they so freaking obsessed with bulldozing our hard-won female sex based rights? This whole movement has more holes than swiss cheese.

Exclude you from where? Supermarkets, hospitals, offices, gyms...? You are not excluded from those services. Which service providers do you think would exclude you?

Indeed. And if nobody's "changing sex" which appears to one of the current statements made by proponents of this incoherent ideology, then trans advocates can fuck right off gaslighting children that their bodies are flawed but a sex change could be the cure for them.

Hey! Just wanted to say that you have another gay male in the fight with you ladies for what it’s worth, I hate that you have to endure this nonsense!

The situation TRA claim they want - for services to be detetmined by the needs of each sex, and then for anyone with the PC of GR or with a GRC to use the service they feel more comfortable in, will never work.

It cant, because as soon as providers justify single sex services, including the opposite sex negates the legitimacy of the SSE.

Think of any subset of men to understand how bonkers it is. A service provides a changing room for women, but includes religious men, or disabled men, or gay men. How did they justify the need for a women only changing room in the first place?

I think TRA know this, and are pushing for their second favourite outcome- if they cant use womens spaces, they are going to ensure that women only spaces dont exist.

so what rights do trans people not have that everyone else does?

Thanks to the FWS judgement we don’t always have the right to a sex based space now.

Anyone posting about Article 8 should be posting about the restrictions to that right as well.
It is very often ignored.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life.

The EHRC link covers what this means. Including these restrictions:
Restrictions to the right to respect for your private and family life

There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

protect national security
protect public safety
protect the economy
protect health or morals
prevent disorder or crime, or
protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

These restrictions keep getting missed out in the claims from people who claim male people have any ‘right’ to not disclose their sex when entering a female single sex provision. The ‘right’ to use single sex provisions remain as ‘sex’ based. No one in the UK has the right to privacy from the same sex when using single sex provisions. No one.

What rights do you think the poster is trying to remove?

Of course you have the right to your own sex based spaces. What makes you think you don't?

You don't have the right to opposite sex spaces of course. Why would you?

Yes you do. Males with a trans identity use male facilities and females with a trans identity use female facilities. Job done. Or they can use a mixed sex gender neutral facility.

If your decisions about undertaking elective extreme body modifications have left you in a situation where you might cause distress to people within your own sex category, why is it on society to make special provisions for your decisions?

If you are merely wearing clothes designed for female bodies, then I doubt you are excluded because you are non-conforming. There are numerous male people who wear non-conforming attire and still safely use the male single sex provisions.

But if it is an issue, I encourage you to start a campaign to welcome all male people into male single sex provisions. I believe that had this been done instead of ignoring women’s lack of consent, you would be much clearer on your safety by now.

Either way, you are a male person. If you want a special provision just to keep you safe, you need to campaign for it. Just as female people have always done.

You never had consent from female people to ever access public single sex provisions. Yet, it seems you didn’t even care to check

The judgement and the EHRC draft guidance said we can be excluded from spaces for our sex. When do you think someone should be excluded?

I don't think the judgement does say that in relation to men.

live and let live. As far as I understood it, a core claim of feminism was that gender and gender roles were social constructs imposed by the patriarchy. I find the biological determinism now being advocated to deny gender identities goes against idea the gender is a social construct.

They said you ‘may’ be excluded if your presence potentially caused distress.

Perhaps you have an over positive view on your ability to present as a female person?

Either way, if you undertook extreme body modification, why does society need to make special arrangements for your personal decisions ?

@TheKeatingFive very true. The judgement dealt with trans identified females on that point

I’ve been waiting years to find out what rights trans people apparently don’t have that all others do! Maybe today is the day?

The rights they don’t have, of course, are other people’s rights, specifically women’s rights afforded to them on the basis of their sex.

They’re men who just can’t believe that women haven’t rolled over and said ok, come on in fellas. They think bits of paper, changing letters on legal documents, their appearance, are all good enough to get what they want. Or in most cases the mere magic utterance of the words ‘I am a woman.’

Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter what any of these men do, even ‘Kaitlyn’ Jenner who has the money to snip, tuck, glow up to his hearts content. They’re all men, always. Now the Supreme Court has reminded them of this, not just annoying unkind women on Mumsnet.

Oh well, oh dear.

@ThatOpalTurtleif you have the protected characteristic of gender resssignment, you can’t be denied services and spaces set up for other men who do not have that characteristic. That would be discrimination and you’d be well advised to bring a case.

Then you never understood feminism.

Feminists never denied being female and worked to campaign for equity of opportunity. Based on the specific needs of a female body in many instances.

No one is saying that a female can only fulfill a specific role in society. We have choices. What we don’t have is the choice to ignore the needs of our female bodies.

You seem to be ill informed.

No, my view of myself and how I’m seen is perfectly well informed, thank you. You assume we’re all hulking giants, but lots of us are living normal quiet lives in our real gender.