Good Law Project to report Sex Matters over 'deviant' remark

[IwantToRetire]

In its assessment of the EHRC guidance, Sex Matters took issue with the following phrase: "It is unlikely to be either practical or appropriate to approach any particular individual to make enquiries about their sex in relation to facilities, such as toilets, which are incidental to the primary service.”

The sex-based rights group responded in a publication entitled <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/lLjDq/sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-is-not-special-category-data/?ref=ed_latest" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Sex is not a 'special category' data", saying: "There is no legal basis for this instruction, which in effect licenses men to enter women’s facilities and claim that it is inappropriate, possibly unlawful and a breach of their human rights to challenge them."

The group further stated: "Telling staff supervising single-sex spaces that they must second-guess themselves when they become aware of a man engaging in the deviant behaviour of accessing a female-only space, or risk breaching data-protection law, will lead to unwanted conduct related to the protected characteristic of sex that is likely to meet the definition of harassment in the Equality Act. It 'violates a person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment'."

From article at https://www.thenational.scot/news/26143769.good-law-project-report-sex-matters-deviant-remark/
and at https://archive.is/lLjDq

Logic is rarely on the side of the nitwits. They rarely notice that this is the case.

"some men are not safe in men's private spaces (hospital wards, prisons), so men ought to be admitted to women's private spaces" never seems to raise the point "so that the women's private spaces become unsafe both for women and for the men who are unsafe in the presence of other men", does it.

It doesn't matter if all women feel the same; enough women, over time must have felt uncomfortable and compromised enough for single sex facilities to have become a thing. Nothing has changed. There are still two sexes, and the more problematical issues between males and females remain.

Those women who are fine with mixed sex changing and so on are free to choose that......but I'm sure most of them are just as comfortable with female only.

Many men get off on making women feel uncomfortable, and they seem quite happy to do this in public settings too. We've all been flashed at by men, or had men being voyeuristic or leering at us in public settings for most of our lives - including in our childhood; and some men clearly enjoy the violation of boundaries involved in accessing female only facilities.

There are certain giveaways that lead me to conclude that @Baileyonice is neither British nor in the UK.

I agree.

Indeed enough people have though it important for there to be a specific exception to the general prohibition of sex discrimination when a facility

"may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa)"

This didn't creep into the legislation by accident.

Good for you if you personally have zero issues with unisex toilets, but policy cannot be built around the comfort levels of one individual. Single sex spaces exist to protect the privacy, dignity, and safeguarding of all women, especially the most vulnerable, young girls, and those with religious or cultural boundaries. Claiming it is about a right to choose completely ignores why the law protects single-sex spaces in the first place. Women have a right to choose privacy and safety from males, and that right shouldn't be overridden because one person on a forum is relaxed about it.

It is very easy to sit behind a keyboard and preach about having zero issues with unisex spaces when perhaps nothing bad or negative has ever happened to you. But God forbid something did happen to you or a female family member, you would be the very first person demanding the safety and privacy of a guaranteed single-sex space. It shouldn't take a personal trauma for someone to understand why these boundaries are vital for women's protection. It is the same logic as to why we all lock our front doors at night. We don't do it because we are certain someone will break in; we do it because they might. Boundaries are about prevention and peace of mind, pure and simple.

Women already have to deal with a constant state of hyper-vigilance out in the open—worrying about men following them in parks, down streets, taking covert videos and photos on trains and buses, or upskirting. It is exhausting. And now this woman expects us to willingly give up our only remaining private spaces and face those exact same threats when we are at our most vulnerable. Just great.

I had assumed an A Level project

Or whatever the equivalent is in wherever the PP lives.

I think it may be a case of
Plan A: Tail wags dog
Plan B: Dog in manger

Oh, very neat! (Applauds)

Very acute. And accurate.

Well it is positive that those kind of posts are useful in other ways besides for coursework :

A - In generating revenue for Mumsnet as engaging with the site and posting gives clicks and allows increased advertising revenue. Even if you don''t ever post on advertising links by interacting with the site you still increase the stats which makes the site more attractive for advertisers. Look at the stats
Mumsnet 2024: £9.4m in revenue. This marked a nearly 20% year-on-year rise from the previous financial year, with post-tax profits also climbing to £2.65 million

B - Pushing Mumsnet up the engagement rankings works on search engines so our threads get more views from others online so the truth gets out there.

Posters on Mumsnet, even negative ones, are part of the process which destroyed No Debate and ensured attempts to keep women's voices silent failed. The Trolls are irritating, but their crazy makes Mumsnet towers stronger.

because the cap fits

Because he's a transphobe?