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).

Well, no, thats the point.

If you for example start a walking group for women because women want a walking group with no men for safety and for female companionship then thats a legitimate aim.

What would be the legitimate aim for women and men who say they are women? And what would be the reason to keep men and women who say they are men out of the group?

It's affirming of trans women being a type of woman. Peter Tatchell said, 'there are chromosomal women & women by identity', & that's what it's getting at.

Absolutely it is not.

Some people want "whites only" spaces. We don't allow them. Some people want "no gays" services. We don't allow that either.

Some people want "women only" services - we do allow that, but only under very very very narrow specific, unusual, circumstances.

Some people want "woman-gender" only services. We don't allow that. See above under white-only or heterosexual-only.

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.

This is just errant nonsense. The six month old child is not the service user; that's the mother. She's female, so uses the women's changing room.

There's no law that says men aren't permitted to be present in a female changing room: a male plumber, a male cleaner - all legal, as long as they're there with the permission of the operator. They're not service users, and their presence doesn't stop it from being a single-sex service.

Please learn to read. I'm talking about women who wish to welcome trans women into their groups. They exist whether you like it or not.

Frankly it doesn't matter how many people want women-gender services. Just like it doesn't matter how many people want white-only services. They're not lawful.

Actually we do allow both of those things. Racial groups exist. Straight only groups exist. Gay and lesbian only groups exist. You want gender critical beliefs to be protected in law - but not the reverse. I dislike the hypocrisy.

Are you referring specifically to associations and not services?

Then in that case if something is lawful then no-one should change the law. No votes for women! No bank accounts for single women! Marital rape? Sorry it's the law. Honestly, get a grip.

Services, not associations. This thread is about services.

We absolutely do not allow racially segregated services, or services segregated by sexual orientation, in the UK.

We do allow a very limited number of services segregated by biological sex, under very very narrowly defined circumstances, in the UK.

I'm referring to all of it. I think if either a service or a group/association and its members wish to provide on the basis of gender rather than sex - then that should be allowed. And vice versa. That seems demonstrably fair to me.

Campaigns to change the law (and not to change it) are welcome. Campaigns that behave and claim the law is somehow already different to how it is, are not.

It could not be clearer that a change in the law is required to allow your desired state of affairs, the law at present does not.

Of course we do! Targetting services to those in need and defined by race or sexual orientation absolutely happens. You might insist it's not segregation because it's 'targetting' but those services are available only to those who fit the criteria based on race and/or sexual orientation.

You'll have to campaign for a change in the law then. Services and associations are governed by very different rules.

You cannot exclude anyone from anything on the basis of race.

You might be able to set up a group for people who come from France.

The EHRC guidance does now say that it is possible to mix and match PCs because of freedom of association rights.

x.com/akuareindorf/status/2057542829434417274

So you want to embed ‘gender’ into U.K. law and allow lawful discrimination on the basis of gender? And you are <checks notes> ‘gender critical’?

Targetting is different to exclusion. Give me an example of a lawful service in the UK that excludes people by race, or by sexual orientation, please.

those services are available only to those who fit the criteria based on race and/or sexual orientation

I call bullshit.

It is glaringly obvious that you don’t understand the law.

And THEY ARE ALLOWED TO
it is just that they need to describe the group as MIXED-SEX
because WOMEN and MEN = mixed sex.

by law they then will not be able to stop other men (all men e.g. all the non-trans-women) or other women (e.g. transmen) from joining.

common sense really - does what it says on the tin.

what you can not do is have WOMEN and MEN (transwomen) and call that SINGLE-SEX / WOMEN ONLY - because that would be inaccurate and illegal.

So crack on- just make sure you describe the group correctly - no-one is anti groups which allow women and transwomen to join - that is after all most groups, just constitute them legally and describe them accurately and legally.

The thing you have to remember is that sex discrimnation is generally unlawful.

This is the main point of the PC of sex in the EA 2010 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

You can only discriminate in certain circumstances, and the bar is much higher when you are providing a service. Your problem is that you are suggesting unlawful discrimination.

Please learn to apply your common sense. The option for unisex groups already exists

Given that this has been explained to @alcovecupboards several times, I think it’s going to take more than bold capitals. Time to try interpretive dance.

It's worth repeating, as many times as necessary.

It may sink in eventually

<takes leotard off>