Trustees urged to show robust decision making in sex and gender debates

[MsGreying]

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/trustees-must-show-robust-decision-making-amid-trans-inclusion-debate-conference-told.html

Robust decision making required

Oliver noted that some groups “have interpreted the decision as a ban on trans people using single-sex spaces and services and, more generally, an erosion of trans rights”.

Eh?
Ffs

I was [foolishly] thinking that this might have been in the wake of Scope cancelling a choir because of the WORIADS, non-choir-related opinions of just one member - a call for trustees of charities like Scope to ensure that they continue doing what they were set up to do, and are not hi-jacked by trans activists as vehicles for their extreme and arguably illegal words and actions.

I was wrong. But at least the author agrees that GC people have rights too, which is an improvement!

That's actually not bad at all. But where she says that there is an obligation on employers to provide separate toilet facilities for men and for women, but no obligation on employers to police them, I think she needs to talk about what should happen if men use the women's toilet and that comes to the employer's attention.

Well yes, it is about excluding men from women's single sex services and spaces, because many women need those to be single sex for them to be accessible and to meet their needs.

You cannot meet women's needs and let men go wherever they want. The two things cannot exist in the same space.

There can be additional spaces and facilities where possible, but men (and activists) have to accept: women have rights too and men can't have everything at the expense of women. They cannot take and enter everything. There has to be equality of provision and consideration, equality of right to accessible and comfortable spaces, and this means that the women who need single sex spaces have access to them. And that men cannot go in those spaces.

The sticking point really, in all this, is still saying 'no, you have to accept that they get things too and you can't have it all' to men. Which shows really exactly why women need those sex based rights.

Yes.

It's the fear again of setting clear boundaries and saying no to men. (And abandoning women and women's equality being the way easier option.)

There will need to be, obviously, a clear requirement that all staff respect that some women need single sex spaces, and those spaces are not entered by those of the opposite sex. And a refusal to respect those people's needs and access will obviously need to result in disciplinary action. And it should go in job descriptions at the start, so it's condition of employment. It's ridiculous that men need these kind of measures to respect the needs of women, but hey ho.

The fear that trans people might lose rights they never had.

The Stonewall Force is strong.