For which services is separate by "gender" appropriate?

[MyAmpleSheep]

Assuming it to be compliant with all relevant legislation (which is another discussion), which public services make more (or enough) sense to separate by self-defined gender rather than by sex?

We are often told that segregating by sex is permissible but not the only way to split "men" and "women" and that it's proportionate and appropriate to split men-identifiers from women-identifiers in some services in "appropriate circumstances" or some other phrase.

What are those services, and what are the appropriate circumstances?

This is a question about services, so I'm explicitly not referring to what the EA2010 covers under associations. Social groups are not services, and they can already be split or made exclusive in a much wider range of ways; I'm not asking about them. Only about public services. For clarity it's probably best to avoid terminology like "single sex spaces" because it's easy to misunderstand whether a "space" is a service - or an association.

So - which services can appropriately be segregated as women+trans-identifying men (women+ "trans women") and men+trans-identifying women (men + "trans men")?

But that's not what I've argued. I'm pointing out that there is no call for it, and there is no evidence that there is a call for it as was claimed. As for the rest of your point - I refer you to my previous posts. There is clearly sufficient call for single-gender services, and as I've said there should be single sex provision too. The sex and gender question is so far removed from race because trans people exist. Transgender is a recognised thing - across the world - 'transracial' is not.

I certainly think they would be quite upset if they were turned away from a service that claimed to be trans inclusive.

Female only is single sex.

People believe in gender
People belive in many things

My point is that gender is a belief system which is unprovable
and is singularly fluid compared with other belief systems

Those who support the concept of gender are deliberately unclear about the boundaries
because that would prove that its intangible
and thus does not need separate protection

Your refusal to accept an answer does not mean an answer was not given.

So where would non binary people go? If you’re doing single gender, surely you’d need five services. Women and men claiming to be women, men and women claiming to be men, female only, male only and non binary? But then what about agender people.? And all the other genders? How many services is a service meant to provide?

Quite a lot of things are 'unprovable' by individuals with anything other than their words and yet accepted as existing.

The point you might be missing is that there are quite strict rules about when sex segregation is lawful, and without the protection of the exceptions in the equality act, you might be breaking the law if you try to turn somebody away for a reason that is arguably connected to a protected characteristic.

But then from everything else you have said, your service would just be mixed sex and you wouldn't turn anyone away.

Could you point to the post where you gave the answer?

To avoid confusion, the question is:

"Would you turn anyone away from your service and on what basis?"

And the point you are missing is that this is hypothetical and therefore does not need to comply with existing laws. It's literally the point of the thread.

You suggested that someone 'non-binary' wouldn't want to use 'single-gender' services. Your argument is now "Oh yea sure, they clearly would want to use female only, single-sex services despite being male, but they definitely wouldn't want to use single-gender ones"? Based on what?

Monsoon apologised and indicated they welcomed males in these spaces.

If I accept your point, there is no genuine reason to formulate it as the same experience of women and transwomen. On this level of detail, there is a shared experience of male and female victims of murder or rape, no matter their gender identity or lack of it.

The comparator is, is the experience of transwomen more relatable to women's than experience of other male victim?
I don't think so.

The difference is both biological (potential pregnancy, risk to existing pregnancy, STI which can among other cause infertility or just have different impact in general) and social (cumulative experience of growing up as a girl in th sexed society).

But now you are also excluding them from your gendered services?

16.52. You're welcome.

How awful of me.

@MyAmpleSheep was this the point of the thread?

I didn't realise that the suggestion was to toss out the entire Equality Act as well as introducing gendered services?

I think they are suggesting they wouldn't want to. I'm not sure whether that poster is naive, goady or something else.

I'm going to be flippant here because I have other things to do and brevity and all that - but I can quite categorically say that if someone is raped and murdered, a potential pregnancy or STI is not a worry or concern.

But can we provide services exclusively for these unprovable traits?

If 'woman gender' includes all women and men who want to be women, what services does this group need? Why would it need to be grndered and not open to all?

Services for gay people exist. There is no known way to evidence whether someone is gay that doesn't involve asking them - and obviously people can lie. But we know that homosexuality exists inside and outside humanity so clearly there is precedence.

That is an argument not to segregate a service at all. It doesn’t provide any basis to argue for segregation on the basis of gender identity.

What services are you thinking about?

It still doesn't answer my question - what services need to be gendered?

In your opinion. Mine is different. Isn't that marvellous how we're not a hive mind?

Thank you for replying to me.

I think a lot of people who pop into threads like this don't think that gender exists in the way it is sometimes used.

For instance, you say that 'Men' and 'women' are gender constructs, whereas I believe that the words 'man' and 'woman' denote biological sex, not constructed gender.

These are core issues in threads like this.

So when Talkinpeace wrote
gender is meaningless because it is fluid and ethereal and subjective and unobservable
she was making a valid point about a word that has so many different interpretations.

Services for gay people. The second point is simple - whichever wishes to be.