Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Because there isn't a real problem, just an invented one. In every toilet there is a private space behind a bolted door. Nobody has a legitimate reason to get naked on the outside of that bolted door. All we women do outside of that door, is handwashing, hair brushing, and touching up the lippy - none of which are 'private' or done with loss of dignity.

There's only one explanation for trying to keep trans women out and that's bigotry.

OK. Now do changing rooms, counselling groups, domestic violence refuges.

As for the rest of your nonsense output - just fark off. I've had enough of you demonising and dehumanising my family.

That's a no then, you're not prepared to say if you think there are any times when single sex services are needed. It doesn't dehumanise anybody to say that there are times when people need exclusive services just for their demographic alone. I have no trouble saying men, women, different races and faiths, and transgender people all need their own spaces and services at times.

 

[monkers]

I've had enough of you insulting my family. When I said 'fark off' that wasn't a heat of the moment thing. I think your heart is cold - just like a fascist.

 

[classic33]

People of both sexes need privacy in toilets. It's possible to overcome the difficulties but you aren't interested in solutions, just in giving biological males access to all women's single sex spaces and services. You offer no solutions whatsoever. If transactivists put as much energy in to building trans specific services as they do trying to gain access to women's spaces, we would have solved half the issues by now.



It's not 'exceptional circumstances' in the Equality Act. The term is 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. Excluding biological male from womens toilets and changing rooms is considered a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (privacy, dignity, safety). Just as excluding biological women from men's single sex spaces is at certain times.

Nope, you haven't proved that assertion.

Stonewall have routinely tried to undermine the provisions of the Equality Act through their training schemes, and in fact their Index scheme rewards companies for doing so. Perhaps that's why an increasing number of institutions are withdrawing. Even one of its founders, Matthew Parrish, has called its stance 'extremist'.

Essex Uni followed their misleading advice (no paywall) and were taken to task.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/stonewalls-diversity-scheme-accused-of-being-unlawful/


That seems a bold assertion. Not all transwomen have hrt or surgery. Some have neither. Not sure anyone of us are in a position to assess whether every transwoman has the ability to rape someone, though of course serious sexual assaults needn't include penetration.

And yet there are plenty of cases of transwomen being charged with rape and sexual assault.


Your hyperbole and emotive special pleading is a bit tiresome. You do not give a toss about women. There is literally no situation in which you would not prioritise the feelings of biological men over women. Not one. Not prisons, not sports, not changing rooms, not same sex hospital wards, not women asking for a female carer for intimate care, not rape counselling groups.

Is there any situation or service in which women should be able to exclude biological males? Any at all?

Let's be absolutely clear where you stand when a disabled woman says she only wants her intimate washing to be done by a biological woman, or a girl only wants to be in a rape counselling group with other biological girls and women. And don't bother replying if you're going to say 'I don't know anything about disabled people or rape counselling' like you do with women's sports - that's just your way of evading having to admit that sometimes single sex spaces and services are a necessity.

With regards toilets, why not go unisex?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_urinal

In these times when money is tight, it'd save money.

As for "exceptional circumstances" can you state where the wording is used in the equalities act?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've had enough of you insulting my family. When I said 'fark off' that wasn't a heat of the moment thing. I think your heart is cold - just like a fascist.

Nobody's insulting your family. 'Your heart is cold - just like a fascist' pretty much sums up the childish condescension that you try to pass off as argument.

 

[Bromptonaut]

People of both sexes need privacy in toilets. It's possible to overcome the difficulties but you aren't interested in solutions, just in giving biological males access to all women's single sex spaces and services. You offer no solutions whatsoever. If transactivists put as much energy in to building trans specific services as they do trying to gain access to women's spaces, we would have solved half the issues by now.



It's not 'exceptional circumstances' in the Equality Act. The term is 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. Excluding biological male from womens toilets and changing rooms is considered a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (privacy, dignity, safety). Just as excluding biological women from men's single sex spaces is at certain times.

Nope, you haven't proved that assertion.

Stonewall have routinely tried to undermine the provisions of the Equality Act through their training schemes, and in fact their Index scheme rewards companies for doing so. Perhaps that's why an increasing number of institutions are withdrawing. Even one of its founders, Matthew Parrish, has called its stance 'extremist'.

Essex Uni followed their misleading advice (no paywall) and were taken to task.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/stonewalls-diversity-scheme-accused-of-being-unlawful/


That seems a bold assertion. Not all transwomen have hrt or surgery. Some have neither. Not sure anyone of us are in a position to assess whether every transwoman has the ability to rape someone, though of course serious sexual assaults needn't include penetration.

And yet there are plenty of cases of transwomen being charged with rape and sexual assault.


Your hyperbole and emotive special pleading is a bit tiresome. You do not give a toss about women. There is literally no situation in which you would not prioritise the feelings of biological men over women. Not one. Not prisons, not sports, not changing rooms, not same sex hospital wards, not women asking for a female carer for intimate care, not rape counselling groups.

Is there any situation or service in which women should be able to exclude biological males? Any at all?

Let's be absolutely clear where you stand when a disabled woman says she only wants her intimate washing to be done by a biological woman, or a girl only wants to be in a rape counselling group with other biological girls and women. And don't bother replying if you're going to say 'I don't know anything about disabled people or rape counselling' like you do with women's sports - that's just your way of evading having to admit that sometimes single sex spaces and services are a necessity.

As has already been pointed out toilets, at least those for women, are private. If folks using the men's toilets don't want to use the urinals they have cubicles too. When my daughter was in Halls at Uni the toilets were unisex cubicles. Toilets are not an issue unless people choose to misbehave in which case there are plenty of protections in law now.

Changing rooms, for the most part, are the same; cubicles are, at least, an option. So far as I remember the last time I was at our local Sports Centre there was just one changing area; all cubicles. Even if a transwoman, with breasts and a penis, is changing in the open is that really a problem. Even a very young child will accept a sensible explanation as to why that my be.

Rape Counselling and Refuges raise more questions and may in some, but by no means all, cases invoke the 'means to an end' sections in the Equality Act. That will be when the facts of particular individuals make biological (ie birth) sex an issue. On the other hand transwomen are vulnerable themselves to both rape and domestic violence.

Sport is different and does raise some serious issues; again might a legitimate end be invoked.

Prisons had this sorted with risk assessments and ways of handling the issue until Ministers decided that headlines in the media mattered more than people's safety and security. How is a transwoman with breasts like Raquel Welch in her prime but a willy they cannot afford to have sorted going to manage in Parkhurst?

It's only difficult because people who think like AS have caught the wind and disreputable politicians are prepared to fan the falmes.

 

[AuroraSaab]

With regards toilets, why not go unisex?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_urinal
In these times when money is tight, it'd save money.
As for "exceptional circumstances" can you state where the wording is used in the equalities act?

I don't think unisex toilets are the ideal solution, especially in places like schools, but done properly they can work OK. Full size enclosed cubicles, no gaps, sink in the cubicle. Open main door, preferably into a busy area.

I'm not sure the unisex urinals idea in your link will catch on though.....

The Equality Act doesn't say 'exceptional circumstances', it says discriminating against someone (for whatever reason) is allowed if it is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

 

[classic33]

I don't think unisex toilets are the ideal solution, especially in places like schools, but done properly they can work OK. Full size enclosed cubicles, no gaps, sink in the cubicle. Open main door, preferably into a busy area.

I'm not sure the unisex urinals idea in your link will catch on though.....

The Equality Act doesn't say 'exceptional circumstances', it says discriminating against someone (for whatever reason) is allowed if it is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

If it doesn't use the wording, why do you keep on saying that it does?
I'm aware of reasonable adjustment under the act, but that isn't to be applied as a blanket ban. It's a case by case basis only.

 

[AuroraSaab]

As has already been pointed out toilets, at least those for women, are private. If folks using the men's toilets don't want to use the urinals they have cubicles too. When my daughter was in Halls at Uni the toilets were unisex cubicles. Toilets are not an issue unless people choose to misbehave in which case there are plenty of protections in law now.

Agreed, key phrase being 'done properly' not just making the women's unisex as they stand.

Changing rooms, for the most part, are the same; cubicles are, at least, an option. So far as I remember the last time I was at our local Sports Centre there was just one changing area; all cubicles. Even if a transwoman, with breasts and a penis, is changing in the open is that really a problem. Even a very young child will accept a sensible explanation as to why that my be.

Again, lots of fully enclosed cubicles is a reasonable solution. Or a third unisex space.

I think lots of people might well have a problem with it. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation for women and girls to have to undress around male bodies. Some Muslim and orthodox Jewish women are not allowed to. If seeing penises is not a big deal, why can't the transwomen change in the Men's?

Rape Counselling and Refuges raise more questions and may in some, but by no means all, cases invoke the 'means to an end' sections in the Equality Act. That will be when the facts of particular individuals make biological (ie birth) sex an issue. On the other hand transwomen are vulnerable themselves to both rape and domestic violence.

There are lots of services just for trans people. I don't think it's unreasonable for a girl or woman who has been traumatised by rape to not want to be anywhere near a male body, whether it's in a counselling group or a refuge. It's possible to have provision for both groups. Similarly men who have been raped might want only male counsellors.

Sport is different and does raise some serious issues; again might a legitimate end be invoked.

Prisons had this sorted with risk assessments and ways of handling the issue until Ministers decided that headlines in the media mattered more than people's safety and security. How is a transwoman with breasts like Raquel Welch in her prime but a willy they cannot afford to have sorted going to manage in Parkhurst?

Women are not human shields for vulnerable men. You can't stick vulnerable men in women's jails just because other men will bully them. They don't do it with other vulnerable male bodied offenders like gay men, mentally vulnerable men, elderly men.

How can you have sympathy for transwomen offenders but no sympathy for women prisoners?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

As has already been pointed out toilets, at least those for women, are private. If folks using the men's toilets don't want to use the urinals they have cubicles too. When my daughter was in Halls at Uni the toilets were unisex cubicles. Toilets are not an issue unless people choose to misbehave in which case there are plenty of protections in law now.

Changing rooms, for the most part, are the same; cubicles are, at least, an option. So far as I remember the last time I was at our local Sports Centre there was just one changing area; all cubicles. Even if a transwoman, with breasts and a penis, is changing in the open is that really a problem. Even a very young child will accept a sensible explanation as to why that my be.

Rape Counselling and Refuges raise more questions and may in some, but by no means all, cases invoke the 'means to an end' sections in the Equality Act. That will be when the facts of particular individuals make biological (ie birth) sex an issue. On the other hand transwomen are vulnerable themselves to both rape and domestic violence.

Sport is different and does raise some serious issues; again might a legitimate end be invoked.

Prisons had this sorted with risk assessments and ways of handling the issue until Ministers decided that headlines in the media mattered more than people's safety and security. How is a transwoman with breasts like Raquel Welch in her prime but a willy they cannot afford to have sorted going to manage in Parkhurst?

It's only difficult because people who think like AS have caught the wind and disreputable politicians are prepared to fan the falmes.

I can't see any problem if women would only compromise, says a bloke.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If it doesn't use the wording, why do you keep on saying that it does?
I'm aware of reasonable adjustment under the act, but that isn't to be applied as a blanket ban. It's a case by case basis only.

I don't. I have no idea why you think I do.

It's only case by case in terms of the circumstances, not in terms of individual people. In providing a service or facility you decide if there are grounds to restrict access only to certain groups. A blanket ban on those who do not meet the criteria might then be legitimate, eg a youth club for under 12's.

 

[AndyRM]

Because using the pronouns which don't match a person's biological sex, for some people anyway, might be considered as consenting to something they don't believe in and which they consider fictitious. Using preferred pronouns is seen by some as an acknowledgement that everyone has a gender identity. Some of us don't believe this.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/19/pronouns-compulsion-and-controversy/

This is the Indiana State University pronouns chart. The examples chosen at the top are quite telling.

View attachment 3740

Personally, I think it's up to individuals if they use someone's chosen pronouns or not. If you don't want to use faeself/verself/xemself, you can just use the person's name or say 'the customer' etc. You don't need to be rude and deliberately call them Sir instead of Madam. Seems a fair compromise.

I disagree. If someone asks me to refer them as, well, whatever they ask, then I will. I don't feel this is an act of compulsion, or validation, or whatever you want to call it. Just being polite and referring to a person how they've requested, if not by their name.

 

[monkers]

The Equality Act doesn't say 'exceptional circumstances', it says discriminating against someone (for whatever reason) is allowed if it is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

Did I say that it did? Maybe that's another of your inventions?

The reason that I used the term 'exceptional circumstances' is because I know certain things about the law. This is a term introduced into case law regarding trans people and prison provision.

 

[Rusty Nails]

As has already been pointed out toilets, at least those for women, are private. If folks using the men's toilets don't want to use the urinals they have cubicles too. When my daughter was in Halls at Uni the toilets were unisex cubicles. Toilets are not an issue unless people choose to misbehave in which case there are plenty of protections in law now.

I can't see any problem if women would only compromise, says a bloke.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philoso...n-and-gender-neutral-toilets-in-public-spaces

According to the data behind this series of surveys over the past few years around 5% of UK women (or 7% of men and women) would be happy with having mixed-sex toilets only so there will have to be a lot of effort needed to persuade people to change their minds.

Interestingly, even in the 18-24 age group only 10% would be happy with mixed-sex only toilets.

The most likely way to get a majority to accept mixed-sex toilets would appear to me to be the compromise of having mixed-sex  plus gender-neutral toilets.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I was replying to Classic who seems to think it was me who used the term for some reason. It was you who used it re the Equality Act though. As far as I can see the term 'exceptional circumstances' doesn't appear in the EA in relation to permitted discrimination at all. It simply has to be a proportionate response, not an exceptional circumstance. Screenshot so you don't accuse me of editing your words:

 

[monkers]

I was replying to Classic who seems to think it was me who used the term for some reason. It was you who used it re the Equality Act though. As far as I can see the term 'exceptional circumstances' doesn't appear in the EA in relation to permitted discrimination at all. It simply has to be a proportionate response, not an exceptional circumstance. Screenshot so you don't accuse me of editing your words:

View attachment 3744

Ok. You've proved that I did not say that I was quoting from the Equality Act. I did not even put the term in quote marks. That means that I was not referencing the term from anywhere at all..

However, the legislature make the law, and the judiciary interpret it in the manner that they are satisfied that is what parliament intends - that is case law, or common law.

1. "Care and management of transgender women and women who have gained a GRC

   4.64 The Gender Recognition Act 2004 section 9 says that when a full GRC is issued to a person, the person's gender becomes, for all purposes, their acquired gender. This means that transgender women prisoners with GRCs must be treated in the same way as biological women for all purposes. Transgender women with GRCs must be placed in the women's estate … unless there are exceptional circumstances, as would be the case for biological women.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1746.html

Common Law sets precedent in the interpretation and implementation of statute until such time as statute is changed. To date that statute has not changed. Legal argument rests with the term 'exceptional circumstances'. A person needing the use of a toilet is not an exceptional circumstance.

Next point ...

1. The premise of the indirect discrimination claim is that the provision made in the policies as to when a transgender woman prisoner will be accommodated in a women's prison puts women prisoners who are not transgender at a particular disadvantage; a disadvantage not suffered by non-transgender men held together with transgender men in a men's prison. Like Lord Justice Holroyde, I accept the psychological impact on non-transgender women prisoners held in prisons with transgender women is likely, in many instances, to be significant: see paragraphs 76 – 77 above. I am prepared to accept the effect on non-transgender men in the corresponding scenario is likely to be less significant. However, when the full provisions of the policies are considered, the Secretary of State's approach to the issue of where and under what conditions transgender women prisoners will be held rests on case-by-case assessment of risk.

Only a fool will think that going to the toilet is an exceptional circumstance and that each and every person can be assessed by risk on a case-by-case basis each time they have need. Only a fool will think that singling people out by a perception of what one unqualified person who volunteers to be a gatekeeper to toilets is a good idea.

Your argument rests on false narrative, lack of legal understanding, and self-justification of bigotry.

You aren't defending women's rights at all - you are seeking to justify your supposed right to be a bigot, only it doesn't wash with me.