"Misandry is the root of all trans fear. Men’s fear of other men. Women’s fear of all men."

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1xbcui7/the_framing_of_the_antitrans_movement_as/

Get popcorn.

Yes, the way some people use the word has changed beyond all recognition.

I remember reading the gender theorists of the 1999s [edit: I mean 1990s], who thought that cross dressing was radical specifically because it revealed there was no necessary connection between sex and gender.

And now some people are keen to claim that because they do certain gendered behaviours (eg wear women’s clothing), their sex is (or should be) different.

Do you think the categories have become collapsed in some peoples’ eyes? As in gender = sex? I find it fascinating that so many people are convinced their gender needs to match their sex.

None of this changes the fact that single-sex services are both permitted by law and preferred by users.

Any argument that, say, single-sex toilet provision is equivalent to Jim Crow laws would be laughed out of court. And who is going to sue the HSE?

Service providers who allow selective opposite-sex use of single-sex services are asking to be sued, both for direct and indirect sex-discrimination. High Court says the result will depend on the fact evidence. There have been at least two cases where providing only a mixed-sex (ie 'trans-inclusive') service was found to constitute indirect sex-discrimination against women (because they are more disadvantaged by it than men are).

The only reason to provide a 'trans-inclusive' service is ideological, not legal.

There are two arguments for trans-inclusive services.

One: it doesn't vitiate the single-sex nature of the service, cf small children, plumbers etc. Rejected by High Court.

Two: forcing trans people to use services for their own sex, or a unisex alternative, is outing, and therefore illegal discrimination as to gender reassignment. Also rejected by High Court.

Jurisprudence currently has 'trans rights' on the back foot.

Your move.

This has to be one of the most arse-backwards sentences ever written. Sex on its own is the only qualifier for a single sex space where providing a single sex space is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Otherwise there is no requirement for such a space.

It really is the most ridiculous sentence, I struggle to believe anyone with level of basic thinking and comprehension skill could write it.

sex on its own isn't a qualifier for single sex spaces

Bonkers.

It's the only qualifier.

Women (currently) have the legal right to a space without men in it to use them as they wish.

I get you really don't like this.

You don't think women should be allowed this.

You're illustrating why women need legal protections and who from.

The problem for those trying to argue a 'TRA' perspective is that life is really very simple:

• Man / Woman
• You remain the same for life
• Some spaces are for men, some for women, some for both.
• you can go into the spaces which are yours / mixed.
• It is biology / law / fact

really not tricky - the average 2 year old toddler understands the difference between boy and girl.

So from that point - all the discussion is simply a word salad, trying to find a way of changing meaning to allow something that simply is not legal.

It doesn't matter whether there is talk of context, feelings, genders, beliefs, circumstances, etc.

it always comes back to the same:
You are a man - this is a space for women - please leave.

It is that simple, there is no discussion any more - men do not enter women's areas under any circumstances other than when allowed (maintenance / cleaning / etc. - just to kill off that spurious argument!)

And Swift did indeed dispense with that spurious argument in GLP v EHRC. Not that chopping will acknowledge that.

I'd forgotten that GLP tried the "but what about mums taking little boys in?" line. Thanks for the laugh!

I remember Robin Moira “Barry” White booming on Woman’s Hour that if mothers can take male toddlers in, he can go in there too.

Id be inclined to say yes, provided he’s accompanied by his mum, both grandmothers, & all 4 of his great grandmothers…

to be fair - if it were a decision based on maturity of the male... 😉

Reminds me of the reddit chap this week when told he had gender neutral facilities and could not use the women's single sex ones, trying 'but what if I'm really desperate and the women's is nearest...'

No. Not even if an emu walks backwards on a Tuesday playing the banjo.

Single sex facilities have to be provided and left in peace for the women who want and need them. End of. Just leave them alone. They don't want to play.

They really, truly cannot stand the fact that women and girls are human and have rights, that women and girls are not on this planet purely for the benefit of men.

Tough - get over it.

when told he had gender neutral facilities and could not use the women's single sex ones, trying 'but what if I'm really desperate and the women's is nearest...'

Whut? Seriously? In my local, the women's loos are near the seating area, the men's are a bit of a walk away. Without fail, ALL the men in the pub manage not to use the women's loos. Do male TRAs have particularly weak bladders or something?
#notforyou

Yes, he was whining that his manager had told him he could no longer use the ladies’ under any circumstances based on the new Civil Service guidance this week.

He asked her that question apparently.

Usual desperation to find a loophole. In which case you could guarantee, women would find him in there daily, claiming they couldn't stop him because he was allowed if he was desperate.

The manager, thankfully, told him no, in no circumstances whatsoever could he invade women's single sex spaces, and if urgency was a serious problem for him she'd escalate it to see what they could do presumably about a gender neutral one nearer.

But he cleared his desk and went home anyway saying he was going to either work from home permanently or go on sick leave until he found a new job.

And ISTR he was quite contemptuous about her reasonable offer to raise his issue with higher ups re appropriate provision. Because clearly that wasn’t in any way what he wanted.

I think it is often overplayed that you can march in to see your doctor and demand to be off work due to stress. I am not sure; but I don't think it's that easy.

Given how captured the medical profession seems to be, I bet it will be that easy for him.

If he feels unable to work anywhere he has to permit women to have their needed single sex space, then MH grounds probably do come into play. It's going to need to be written into job descriptions and contracts: tolerance of permitting women to have a single sex space. It's somewhat Victorian but would manage expectations from the first day of employment.

If it's a large organisation where his manager doesn't have to control the employee budget, it's an easy way to manage a troublemaker to let them skive off at home for a bit. One suspects that many managers don't have the enormous energy needed to manage some people.

In terms of the resentment it would cause from other staff who don’t get this privilege and see that he got it from throwing a tantrum it may or may not be worth it, depending on the circumstances and people involved.

I raise the possibility that the other staff might see it as a welcome relief to have him stay at home.

Just a possibility.

They very well might!

Bit then he's getting rewarded. I hope they find way to manage him out but it will be a time consuming nightmare for the manager.