Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

As it's the same legislation that allows exclusion in sport in the UK, it seems odd that we've seen increasing numbers of sports organisations banning men from the women's category here. Obviously the £££££'s they spent with consultants would have been better invested taking their legal advice from your hefty prose on Cycle Chat.

Obvious whataboutery. Its the 2004 GRA that sets out the exceptions in sport. It has nothing to do with the rights of trans women using the loo.

 

[monkers]

I'll presume you aren't going to answer the question as to whether other groups excluding people in certain circumstances is also 'seeking privileges', but feel free to come back to it when you've decided.

You are always presuming, and always getting it wrong. Several people have taken you to task, why are you still doing it? Don't tell me - it's a hard won sex-based right available only to some women who don't know rest of the law.

Privileges are what actual feminists object to, they are the whole basis of 'the patriarchy. So I never said it. But as usual you are attributing unsaid things to people. I said you are using pretended rights, but if you want extra rights, go ahead and campaign for them. Just don't pretend the law is something that it isn't.

I've decided that what the law says it is, it is. Where the law is unclear, common law can prevail. Where the law is unclear in respect to conventions rights, then common law can prevail, but a notice of incompatibility is handed to the relevant minister.

 

[monkers]

I'm going to save you the bother Aurora. Now pay close attention. I'll copy the guidance directly from the Equality Office of the UK government.

Ready?

Providing services for transgender customers A guide.

Who is this guidance for? This guidance is for anyone who provides services. This includes those providing statutory services, voluntary sector services or business / commercial services, e.g. as shops, restaurants, public houses, banks, sports clubs and leisure centres. This is general guidance and so may not cover every circumstance you may encounter in your particular service. You may need to take further advice in some situations or if you are unclear what to do. Further resources that can help you are given at the end of this document.

All organisations will wish to ensure that they provide the best service for their customers and users to build and maintain their reputation and to ensure customer loyalty. Public sector services need to retain the public’s confidence by ensuring that their services include everyone and that service users are treated fairly. Services are generally better when they are designed to take account of different people’s needs. If you set the atmosphere and culture by treating the inclusion of transgender people as ‘business as usual’ and nothing remarkable, it will help others to follow. In other words, be mindful of issues that can arise, but don’t expect there to be problems. Treating transgender service-users well is cost effective in terms of reputation and business, but also it will reduce the number of complaints, and even in some cases, legal action.

Good Practice 1: Treat transgender people as you would all other customers whilst considering the additional sensitivities they may face You may not know that a transgender person is using your facilities or services. Don’t assume that you can identify a person as trans.

Try not to assume you can always tell someone’s gender by looking at them or hearing their voice. This is particularly important to remember on the phone. Take each individual person’s lead regarding language. If someone makes it clear how they would like to be addressed in terms of their gender, especially as regards their name, pronoun and / or title, then respect those choices.

Good Practice 4: Assume everyone selects the facilities appropriate to their gender A trans person should be free to select the facilities (such as toilets or changing rooms) appropriate to the gender in which they present. For example, when a trans person starts to live in their acquired gender on a full-time basis they should be afforded the right to use the facilities appropriate to their acquired gender. Service providers must avoid discriminating against anyone with the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’.

A trans person should be free to select the facilities (such as toilets or changing rooms) appropriate to the gender in which they present.

See that right there? This is the government equalities office saying 'toilets and changing rooms'.

Please do stop saying that is what I am claiming - it isn't. It's what the government are telling you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Several lengthy verbose posts that try to present the law as you would like it. Here's the clarification from the government. Needed because some folk, like yourself and Stonewall, keep presenting it as different.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

I'm done discussing this with you now. However much you wish it to be so, there are circumstances in which people can be excluded from services and facilities whether it's on the basis or sex, race, age or whatever. Your wishful thinking and attempts to present the law differently doesn't change that.

 

[monkers]

Likewise, my patience is exhausted.

Wasn't this you???

Yes they are. And that's why we exclude them from all women's single sex spaces. All of the men. However they identify, however they dress, however lovely they are .... we exclude them all. Because the problem is men. Not trans people because otherwise we'd exclude women who identify as men. The problem is men. Not all men, but enough of them for it to be a problem.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You seem to have run out of full stops. You can have some of mine if you like. Here you go, I've got loads spare:
...........................

Edit: Aw. You edited your post to spoil my grammar joke.

 

[classic33]

Several lengthy verbose posts that try to present the law as you would like it. Here's the clarification from the government. Needed because some folk, like yourself and Stonewall, keep presenting it as different.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

View attachment 3716

View attachment 3717

I'm done discussing this with you now. However much you wish it to be so, there are circumstances in which people can be excluded from services and facilities whether it's on the basis or sex, race, age or whatever. Your wishful thinking and attempts to present the law differently doesn't change that.

I believe that's classed as reasonable adjustment under the equalities act. Similar to what existed in the DDA, so couldn't just be written out of existence.

Get it wrong and you might find that the person you're trying to exclude may not just agree.

 

[classic33]

Likewise, my patience is exhausted.

Wasn't this you???

And that would be unlawful discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010.

However, that's what she really wanted from the word go. The rest has been trying to hide it under something, anything else.

 

[monkers]

And that would be unlawful discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010.

However, that's what she really wanted from the word go. The rest has been trying to hide it under something, anything else.

All those lies, all that deviation, whataboutery, goalpost shifting, false accusation, blame shifting, and all in plain sight because the record always shows.

 

[classic33]

Several lengthy verbose posts that try to present the law as you would like it. Here's the clarification from the government. Needed because some folk, like yourself and Stonewall, keep presenting it as different.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

View attachment 3716

View attachment 3717

I'm done discussing this with you now. However much you wish it to be so, there are circumstances in which people can be excluded from services and facilities whether it's on the basis or sex, race, age or whatever.[/B Your wishful thinking and attempts to present the law differently doesn't change that.

That's not what the guidance, for that is all it is, says though, is it.

I'd prefer a link to the guidance, rather than a screenshit from an article in a paper.

 

[monkers]

That's not what the guidance, for that is all it is, says though, is it.

I'd prefer a link to the guidance, rather than a screenshit from an article in a paper.

You won't get it from Aurora since it doesn't say what she wants it to say. Anyway, it's here ...

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ervices_for_transgender_customers-a_guide.pdf

 

[classic33]

You won't get it from Aurora since it doesn't say what she wants it to say. Anyway, it's here ...

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ervices_for_transgender_customers-a_guide.pdf

I was aware of that post by her, which is why I asked would the "Mick Dundee Test" be used.

Apologies for the autocorrect on the spelling, first time I've seen that one.

 

[monkers]

I was aware of that post by her, which is why I asked would the "Mick Dundee Test" be used.

Apologies for the autocorrect on the spelling, first time I've seen that one.

Sure. I remember somewhat flippantly replying with this ...

In the absence of enough Mick Dundees to go around, perhaps she'll helpfully provide enough test bots to probe the anus of everyone entering every facility she claims to be exclusively for women to test for the presence of a prostate gland. I'm sure there are some people who would produce the test result '100% arse'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Your chosen source on this matter seems to be a leaflet from 2015 issued in association with Gendered Intelligence, a well known trans activist group. It's thanks to folk like them that the government saw fit to issue the guidance that the Guardian article quotes.

Even your source link says clearly on page 26 that you can exclude transgender people when it's a proportionate response.

You won't get it from Aurora since it doesn't say what she wants it to say. Anyway, it's here ...
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ervices_for_transgender_customers-a_guide.pdf

For those who think the Guardian are lying transphobic barstewards who make stuff up, here it is:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...dance-published-providers-single-sex-services

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...e-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and-gender

You should get on to Jolyon Maughan. There's hundreds of examples of these exclusions going on every day. I'm sure he could crowdfund a challenge based on your legal advice, though you have to wonder why Stonewall haven't done it already.

 

[monkers]

Your chosen source on this matter seems to be a leaflet from 2015 issued in association with Gendered Intelligence, a well known trans activist group. It's thanks to folk like them that the government saw fit to issue the guidance that the Guardian article quotes.

Even your source link says clearly on page 26 that you can exclude transgender people when it's a proportionate response.



For those who think the Guardian are lying transphobic barstewards who make stuff up, here it is:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...dance-published-providers-single-sex-services

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...e-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and-gender

You should get on to Jolyon Maughan. There's hundreds of examples of these exclusions going on every day. I'm sure he could crowdfund a challenge based on your legal advice, though you have to wonder why Stonewall haven't done it already.

Yes one thing is the guidance. ^^^^^^

Then there is your batshit craziness vvvvvv

Yes they are. And that's why we exclude them from all women's single sex spaces. All of the men. However they identify, however they dress, however lovely they are .... we exclude them all. Because the problem is men. Not trans people because otherwise we'd exclude women who identify as men. The problem is men. Not all men, but enough of them for it to be a problem.

There's no way to reconcile the two things.