Gender again. Sorry!

[classic33]

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.

But as pointed out by yourself, nearly four months ago now, it was never about excluding trans people. You want men excluding, which is against the law. Even with reasonable adjustment taking into consideration. Which must be done on a case by case basis, not a blanket judgement/call.

Note also that the links you provided are only guidance to the law, not the law itself

 

[AuroraSaab]

It would be very strange if the official guidance was in opposition to what the law actually said though. I've posted the actual Equality Act several times and you guys still deny it says what it says. Now you say the official clarification doesn't say what the law says either.

If it was about excluding transgender people per se, as opposed to excluding men in certain circumstances, then a rape counselling service that was just for women would be able to exclude a transman from their group counselling. They can't. If they did it would be discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. They could exclude a transwoman though - because the exclusion is because they are male born, not because they are transgender.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes one thing is the guidance. ^^^^^^
Then there is your batshit craziness vvvvvv
There's no way to reconcile the two things.

Men are able to be legally excluded in certain circumstances because they are men. They aren't being excluded for being transgender.

If the evidence for your position is so concrete you have to wonder why Stonewall haven't challenged it in the courts. I'd say it's because they know what the law says but have chosen to take the path of using their training and the Stonewall Employers Index scheme to push their preferred interpretation.

 

[monkers]

It would be very strange if the official guidance was in opposition to what the law actually said though. I've posted the actual Equality Act several times and you guys still deny it says what it says. Now you say the official clarification doesn't say what the law says either.

If it was about excluding transgender people per se, as opposed to excluding men in certain circumstances, then a rape counselling service that was just for women would be able to exclude a transman from their group counselling. They can't. If they did it would be discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. They could exclude a transwoman though - because the exclusion is because they are male born, not because they are transgender.

Ye Gods you're an idiot.

The government, specifically Kemi Badenoch has been driving people out of the commission because she wants to change the law so that 'sex' becomes 'biological sex'. This is exactly for the reason that the current law means 'legally recognised sex'. To this end she has even appointed one person who had been her political sponsor to the commission.

The commission have reported back to Badenoch to say that this could be especially difficult. If she does it without consulting parliament in the usual way there could be hell to pay. As only a guess, I will predict that they won't try it within this parliament, but they'll try it as an election item along with asylum seekers / refugee people because that's what they do. Drive a cultural wedge between us for political and electoral gain.

 

[icowden]

The commission have reported back to Badenoch to say that this could be especially difficult. If she does it without consulting parliament in the usual way there could be hell to pay. As only a guess, I will predict that they won't try it within this parliament, but they'll try it as an election item along with asylum seekers / refugee people because that's what they do. Drive a cultural wedge between us for political and electoral gain.

Isn't the point though that the whole "man" or "woman" thing becomes pointless with self-ID? I can be a woman on Tuesdays abut a man on Wednesdays if I want.

 

[monkers]

Isn't the point though that the whole "man" or "woman" thing becomes pointless with self-ID? I can be a woman on Tuesdays abut a man on Wednesdays if I want.

We don't have Self-Id in the UK. Hypothetically a system could be put in place that would make that feasible. In other countries it isn't as safeguards are put in place. In the Scottish Act, the proposal is for a system that takes six months rather than twenty four. Another requirement is that the applicant is checked against the sex offenders register, and checked to see if they have an ongoing case of assault on women. Additionally the applicant is required to sign an affidavit to promise to act in good faith. This means that a person who transitions for some nefarious reason can end up facing a judge.

Further to all of this, the UK system doesn't have the safeguards of the Scottish system. It's true to say that despite all the newspapers crying that Isla Bryson could have just completed a process of Self-Id and walked into a female prison just isn't true given what I've detailed above.

The Act only entitles a person to apply, the outcome is not guaranteed.

 

[classic33]

It would be very strange if the official guidance was in opposition to what the law actually said though. I've posted the actual Equality Act several times and you guys still deny it says what it says. Now you say the official clarification doesn't say what the law says either.

If it was about excluding transgender people per se, as opposed to excluding men in certain circumstances, then a rape counselling service that was just for women would be able to exclude a transman from their group counselling. They can't. If they did it would be discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. They could exclude a transwoman though - because the exclusion is because they are male born, not because they are transgender.

Reasonable Adjustment has to be done on a case by case basis. A simple blanket ban wouldn't be legal.

Your whole argument has been to get men excluded, for which you've used trans women as your proof as to why it's unsafe to have men in "women's spaces"*.

Would you exclude a trans woman who's been raped from a rape counsellor?

 

[monkers]

Reasonable Adjustment has to be done on a case by case basis. A simple blanket ban wouldn't be legal.

Your whole argument has been to get men excluded, for which you've used trans women as your proof as to why it's unsafe to have men in "women's spaces"*.

Would you exclude a trans woman who's been raped from a rape counsellor?

I've just been in my niece's room and found her folder. Ironically, her GRC says, Gender:female. Her birth certificate says Sex:girl. This is from 2012.

She is not required to carry a copy of her GRC for identity purposes, and people are not entitled to ask for one just on the basis of a perception that a person maybe trans. A system that asks for a birth certificate would be lawful, as long as everyone had to produce one. In practical terms that already makes it a non-starter. And anyway if N was required to produce her birth certificate it says Sex:Girl, so what then can they do?

Making 'sex' in the EqA defined as 'biological sex' would clearly be 'bad law' because it could not be made to work without issuing the whole country with ID cards - something that Conservatives have previously been fundamentally against.

This ideology is just bigotry for simpletons.

 

[classic33]

I've just been in my niece's room and found her folder. Ironically, her GRC says, Gender:female. Her birth certificate says Sex:girl. This is from 2012.

She is not required to carry a copy of her GRC for identity purposes, and people are not entitled to ask for one just on the basis of a perception that a person maybe trans. A system that asks for a birth certificate would be lawful, as long as everyone had to produce one. In practical terms that already makes it a non-starter. And anyway if N was required to produce her birth certificate it says Sex:Girl, so what then can they do?

Making 'sex' in the EqA defined as 'biological sex' would clearly be 'bad law' because it could not be made to work without issuing the whole country with ID cards - something that Conservatives have previously been fundamentally against.

This ideology is just bigotry for simpletons.

I have been asked to prove I'm disabled, and the nature of the disability. The result of the questioning was an official complaint under the equalities act. The person asking the questions refused to believe that she had no right to ask either for the proof or the nature of the disability, despite her manager telling her to stop asking as she wasn't allowed to.

The disability is "hidden" from view so I didn't look disabled to her.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Ye Gods you're an idiot.

And you are rude and condescending. So what. Nobody gives a toss about your endless personal abuse.

When the Equality Act was drafted, there was no recognition that 'sex' could mean anything other than biological sex. Thanks to Stonewall and people like yourself trying to muddy the waters, it was necessary to issue the guidance given last April about single sex spaces and services. Clarifying that 'sex' unambiguously means biological sex will further clarify the Act.

I doubt it will happen before the election but if it brought an end to your arrogant pontificating it would probably get half the country voting Tory.

 

[classic33]

And you are rude and condescending. So what. Nobody gives a toss about your endless personal abuse.

When the Equality Act was drafted, there was no recognition that 'sex' could mean anything other than biological sex. Thanks to Stonewall and people like yourself trying to muddy the waters, it was necessary to issue the guidance given last April about single sex spaces and services. Clarifying that 'sex' unambiguously means biological sex will further clarify the Act.

I doubt it will happen before the election but if it brought an end to your arrogant pontificating it would probably get half the country voting Tory.

What does that make you then?

The Equalities Act brought together a number of different Acts under one. Simplifying them and ensuring that no-one protected by the acts it replaced were at a disadvantage.

You're seeking to use it to exclude men, who you say are the problem, from an area you might use. By whatever means you feel might help your case. Even if the piece you're using isn't relevant to UK law.

 

[monkers]

And you are rude and condescending. So what. Nobody gives a toss about your endless personal abuse.

When the Equality Act was drafted, there was no recognition that 'sex' could mean anything other than biological sex. Thanks to Stonewall and people like yourself trying to muddy the waters, it was necessary to issue the guidance given last April about single sex spaces and services. Clarifying that 'sex' unambiguously means biological sex will further clarify the Act.

I doubt it will happen before the election but if it brought an end to your arrogant pontificating it would probably get half the country voting Tory.

I'm not sure that I'm not being rude enough to a bigot who asserts that my niece, the child I raised from the age of ten is all the things you say she is.

She is something very special that you are clearly not.

I have had nothing to do with Stonewall, so that's a fail, and being as I have never been an MP or person of such influence to have had input into the EqA that's another fail.

These are just all part of your nonsense presumptions and allegations that categorise you as an idiot. Then there is the astonishing political naivety that you don't realise that you are actually campaigning against women's rights in the UK. Thankfully Raab's exit might make that a little more difficult for the government, but then Dowden sounds a bit of a tw@ too.

If brains were actually gunpowder you'd even fail to manage to blow your own hat off.

 

[multitool]

Just standing up for women's rights

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c870jlym68zo

 

[icowden]

Just standing up for women's rights
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c870jlym68zo

How do you derive that from the article?

Detectives are treating the fire as suspicious and are working with fire investigators to work out the cause of the blaze.

They don't know what the cause is but are already treating it as a hate crime, even though they have stated there is no evidence of such. Personally i think that's a bit weird.

 

[Ian H]

How do you derive that from the article?


They don't know what the cause is but are already treating it as a hate crime, even though they have stated there is no evidence of such. Personally i think that's a bit weird.

They don't know how it was caused but 'pursuing active lines of enquiry' suggests they have evidence of who and why.