Services and spaces should be separated according to gender, not sex

[BackToLurk]

Because that’s the argument isn’t it? If trans rights activists and their allies accept that no one changes sex, then what they are really arguing for is that any separation should actually be made on the basis of gender.

As I’m a helpful sort, I’ve started a whole thread for people to make that argument. Off you go fellas. Bring your brightest. Make your case. I really do want to hear it. (And I’m not, for once, being sarcastic).

So you do object to others having a different belief to you and organising around that belief. The difference here is that we disagree - but I support both sides rights to have groups for themselves. And I don't think either should be punished in law. Currently one is. And I find that hypocritical and unacceptable.

You're being completely disingenuous. I engaged in good faith as requested but you won't do the same. You clearly do not accept that being trans is something that deserves protection and accommodation. I do - in some circumstances.

@Heggettypeg's comment is not about 'beliefs' that is one of the deliberate red herrings thrown into these discussions... the comment is about fact - if you want a mixed group - call it that and set it up as that, but if you call it a woman's group, then fact = only women can be in it and that means no men - however they identify.

My feelings exactly. The over-complication of this in an effort to stop people welcoming trans people into groups WILL backfire.

So do I, in terms of no discrimination re housing, work etc. But not in terms of joining something that uses the word for an individual sex that they are not in its title. So fine, have a group for women and transwomen, but you can't use the word women in the name. It's taken. Unless you say 'the Little Nethop women and transwomen book club', that's fine. Everyone knows what's what.

And no one is stopping you making that argument. But you do wish to impose your belief that trans women = men on others. Whether you like it or not there are plenty of women who welcome trans women as women and want them in their groups. Why do those women not get to decide that? This isn't a red herring or muddying the waters - it's a legitimate question that is becoming increasingly pointed. It's not one that's going to go away - and the lack of a suitable answer will lead to it backfiring on single sex provision going forward.

It has nothing to do with excluding trans people - but everything to do with fact, reality, and the law.

if a group is set up for people wearing red jumpers - then no-one wearing a green jumper can join - that is simple, clear fact based on the agreed known definitions of the english language.

if a group is set up for women, then men can't join it because a man can never be a woman - that is not anti-transwomen, it is pro-women.

to insist that a transwoman must be able to join any group they want is arrogant, entitled and ego-centric of the highest order! We do not all have a right to join someone else's group - they have a right (as long as they are legal!) to set up any group they wish and define as they wish who can join - if they want a group for vicars that is fine, if they want a group for the over 50s or under 30s, as long as there is a justifiable reason, then that is also fine - the 60 year old can't demand to join the under-30s they can though join the over 50s. Even if there is no group for them, they can start one - they can't demand to join one where they don't meet the criteria...

and a women's group is just that - and as confirmed in law that means only those who are biologically women - so if someone sets up a women's group - they are not excluding transwomen - they are excluding men - which is legal.

the only reason a transwomen would want to join would be to validate their lie that they are a woman / female - they are not, they are men by definition and therefore they do not get to play in women's spaces... simple.

That may well be a sensible solution. I think as long as the description is clear - on both sides - then that's enough. For me anyway.

I think the people overcomplicating things are the councils/unions/MPs etc. suggesting that it's impossible to follow the EHRC guidelines

But from what you have posted, you agree with the EHRC guidelines and think they are wrong?

So by that logic trans women are women in Australia? We're talking about our beliefs here. You're purposely misrepresenting what I've actually written. I haven't said trans women should be able to force themselves into groups that they aren't wanted in - quite the opposite. I've said that neither side should be able to impose their views on the other. Only GC people here are suggesting their beliefs should overrule others' wishes.

Yep, clarity is essential. Then people on all sides can make informed choices.

Neither the courts nor the government care how most book clubs are organised.

The Equality Act is only relevant to associations that have more than 25 people, and services.

Most book clubs aren't that formal.

how kind of you - thank you.

I am not imposing a belief that transwomen are men is fact not belief. it is there in the definition (they have to have been born male to be able to even think that they can transition to a woman), it is there in the name - it is there in law, it is there in biology - I am not sure how many more places you wish to look to find that a transwoman is a man...

Whether you like it or not there are plenty of women who welcome trans women as women and want them in their groups

There are plenty of people who play all sorts of games / who feel that they are being kind / who share similar delusions / name your reason - but even in how you write that 'welcome transwoman as women' in the grammar and language you use is embedded the fact that a transwoman is not = a woman, but only welcomed AS a woman - i.e. you are in how you write admitting that a transwoman is a man.

Why do those women not get to decide that?
Of course they can decide that - they just can't legally call it a woman's group because having men in it makes it mixed sex... They can decide who they want in their group - they don't get to change the English language...

will lead to it backfiring on single sex provision going forward
But by definition it will no longer be single sex provision - put men into a women's group and it is mixed sex...

your arguments all stack up... - if you start by believing that a man can change to be a woman. However

• legally
• biologically
• physically

a man can never become a woman - at which point all your arguments tumble down...

Why are we discussing book groups when the question was about services?

So by that logic trans women are women in Australia?

nope - I said fact, reality and the law
some of those are missing in the current Australia climate... 😉
we start with fact - the law can be made into nonsense as the Australians have discovered, but whatever their law it doesn't change fact / reality - Biology is absolute and immutable...

however in the UK - the law is a little bit more sensible and recognises that a man can never become a woman or vv

I disagree. The SC clarification - taken as read - was clear in that it explicitly said that this should not be seen as a victory for either side. Unfortunately Sex Matters immediately claimed it was an overwhelming victory and so while the EHRC guidance has some merit - the waters have been sufficiently muddied so even if someone is following the guidance, the threat of legal action if they are not going further can be damaging. I think it's absolutely outrageous to leave trans men - and women who don't sufficiently present with enough femininity - without public accommodation because they can be banned from both male and female toilets under that guidance. We're also in a hard and fast rule with regards to changing facilities for children. There is no exemption in law for a child of the opposite sex of its parents being accommodated anywhere other than a gender neutral changing room. Now sensible people will ignore this - as will most sensible people across the board frankly. But the legal reality of this country is now that a mother cannot take her son into the female changing rooms - even if he's six month's old. If single sex is to mean single sex without exception - then that's a far bigger problem than anyone intended.

Nonsense, under 8s is fine.

FGS, I said in my first paragraph that I don't care if women and men who identify as women get together and have a book group! It's the forcing of gender- based organisation on women's groups that don't want to be mixed sex that I object to.

If they are challenged, it is up to them to make a case for why their gender- based criteria for exclusion and inclusion respectively make sense and fairness.

Though if their criteria were "female bodied people ( without further qualification) plus male bodied people who think of themselves as women", they'd not be making much sense in terms of either organising by sex or organising by gender because that's a mishmash of both.

What about:

Consider a space whose primary purpose is to provide a respite and recuperation zone for anyone to escape from the constant onslaught of toxic masculinity out there in the wide world. Of course that could include men and women.

Interested to see discourse on this

Where is that in the legislation?

. I think it's absolutely outrageous to leave trans men - and women who don't sufficiently present with enough femininity - without public accommodation because they can be banned from both male and female toilets under that guidance.

You be pleased to know that isn't what the SC judgment or guidance said. Women can only be asked not to use female SS spaces if there is a suitable alternative available.

That's what I think too. Facebook keeps inviting me to join lesbian dating groups, & some of them say women not including trans women & some say we define women to include trans women. Some of the debate seems to be pressure from trans women who don't want there to be a caveat about trans & just want to be women, but this isn't UK law, & many women are not comfortable with it.

I see your point, though it is possibly trickier than you think...

on the one side that is a mixed sex offering, and open to all...
on the other side, the presence of men there (even if fellow sufferers) could be triggering for others (men and women), so it probably wouldn't be sensible to set up on that basis...

there is nothing to stop you offering a refuge or sanctuary from sexual abuse to both male and female - all can be victims... however, most sexual abuse is generated by men, so having it mixed sex brings issues if either sex victim is having to relieve experiences with other males around - so single sex makes more sense...

so conceptually yes, in reality, possibly not...

What’s disingenuous? Maybe you are unsure what that word means?

You keep saying that other people are trying to enforce their views, but you are trying to enforce the view that a group with some male people in is a ‘women’s’ group rather than a mixed sex group?

I haven’t suggested that trans people shouldn’t be protected. They are, by the Equality Act. Please point out where I have said that protection should be removed.

As I said, what you are advocating for is giving them a special status. Unless, of course, you are happy for a group to include “female people and some male people if they are white”

I'm perfectly aware of what it means, thank you. And you are absolutely being disingenuous. Being trans is different - objectively so - from being a particular race. Quite a few people have tried to make that argument but fail to admit that being transgender is a recognised thing in a statistically significant number of people. Being transracial is not.