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

Heh! I think I've said before that I reckon Joe Orton (or Dario Fo) would have had fun with all this.

I have this feeling that someone does protest to much, based not on reality but theinner workings of their mind!

And there was me logging back in after a few hours thinking this op seems to have got a few comments.

But really it was groundhog day all over again.

Yes, I think wilful damage to public property may count as deviant. 😁

On reflexion I do wonder whether in terms of impact the word deviant, correctly indentifying someone behaving at odds with the accepted norms, shouldn't have in fact been the word illegal.

This is because too many TRAs have managed to persuade people that normal social practise is for entitled men to be in women's toilets.

And as the law has had to be used to try and remind people what reality is ie sex is biological, men do not use women's toilets, that SM should have said illegal.

Following the Supreme Court ruling if a facility is labeled women only it is only for biological women. Men who identify as anything under the sun are not by law allowed to use that facility.

They are breadking the law to do so.

Therefore it is an illegal act.

Lol. An argument on the common perception of the word "deviant" whilst refusing to accept that "woman" already has a common acknowledged meaning or perception.

The difference being the word 'woman' isn't being used to suggest nefariousness.

I think the word deviant underscores the antisocial, scoff-law aspect of the action. Driving over the speed limit is illegal but it isn't an effort to flout authority and intimidate women with one's bodily presence, daring them to turn you out to your face. The men now invading women's spaces are seeking to exploit the very vulnerability that the law is meant to protect.

It's outrageous that the trans community (and its supporters) are rallying around this behaviour and it should be condemned with the harsh language it deserves.

This plan to go after Sex Matters may have implications for the defamation case Sarah is bringing against the fox basher. Remember folks Sarah's garden is looking for seeds. She now has a top barrister to represent her.

Sarah Phillimore

What this foolish man has done in conceding defamation and serious harm, is that he is relying on truth/public interest to defeat my claim. So, this may be the first court outing where the Judge does have to explicitly engage with the credibility of gender identity ideology.

Thread on the case:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5511121-glp-are-going-after-sarah-phillimore-and-are-going-to-lose-part-two?page=16

@Baileyonice I would be interested in your answers to these:

What about the men who said they were transwomen just for the time they were in women’s toilets for the purpose of sexually assaulting and voyeurism on women?

What about all the men with SHPOs which bans them from female and unisex toilets for years? I have never found any data on a woman banned from public toilets.

What about the men who are opportunistic voyeurs? There are thousands of these cases. 100% of voyeurs (in all places) in prison are men (as known May 25). The number of school staff convicted of spying on children in toilets with cameras I have got up to double figures with a google search. All male.

Criminal behaviour in toilets is so sexed that it is absolutely right and proper to question a man going into the women’s toilets.

Edit to point out: most men are good men. The men above deviate from the norm.

A minority doesn't represent the majority so its not fair to categorise trans women as 'deviant' just like its not fair to categorise all muslims as terrorists.

Aren't gender critical people supposed to be anti stereotyping?

Again.....

SM are talking about men who exhibit deviant behaviour. That's what their actual words say.

If you choose to read it as all "trans women are deviants" that's your comprehension issue.
And are you saying trans women are men?

Again….

That you choose to pretend common social associations to words don't exist is your denial issue.

There were no transwomen in my post

Interesting that when you wanted to mention terrorists you immediately reached for Muslims though @Baileyonice

Why was that?
Not against a bit of stereotypical thinking yourself.

You see what you want to see, I guess...

All you're doing is cementing a connection in people's minds!

Are you suggesting bigoted trends that are repeated routinely aren't noticeable?

Maybe not by bigots I suppose.

I notice that you're avoiding the point and pulling out the insults

Like some gender critical activists do?

That no one ever associated deviancy with perversion till I brought it up?

Thanks for the laff.

You keep doing it, Baileyonice - Sex Matters didn't mention transwomen. Keeptoiletssafe didn't mention transwomen. Nobody said deviant' = 'sexual' except you.
You seem to be determined to read 'transwomen' into everything, and associate 'transwoman' with 'sexual deviancy'.

You're the only one who's repeatedly mentioned a "pervy" connection on this thread!

Still haven’t answered my first post though.

I'd love to know what the well-known legal phrase "perverting the course of justice" brings up in your mind!

Keep digging.

It really is astounding to watch those who regularly screech that trans people are dangerous perverse predators from the roof tops on these pages perform the most spectacular mental gymnastics that no such association has ever been made.

No wonder the movement has plateaued its reach. The bad faith denials certainly doesn't help.

Again...

SM's statement is about men

The hyperbolic language certainly doesn't help