Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

There you have it, guys. Apparently your daughters and grandaughters have no right under the Equality Act to be away from male bodies whilst getting undressed. If they see adult male penises it's just tough luck. They should look away. Or stop doing the thing they enjoy if it requires privacy and dignity.

Despite the Equality Act saying that service providers can exclude males from certain spaces and serviced, even with a GRC, Monkers doesn't accept this. There is literally no service or space, including ones where women are vulnerable, that Monkers thinks men shouldn't be in.

 

[classic33]

And there's also no law against challenging, questioning or even trying to get changed laws that are written down, if they are felt to be wrong in some way.

That's what many of us do already ..

You might call that 'whinging'

It's my belief that @AuroraSaab is using the word 'right' in this context more coloquially.
She may want to put me right (🙄) on that.

It's not just about whether women do or don't want to see penises in whatever state they may be .

It's about their feeling as comfortable, and safe in certain circumstances, as they reasonably can.
eg in changing rooms, or say rape crisis centres.

It's about the fact that many many women feel uncomfortable being in a state of semi or full undress, or other state of vulnerability around male bodied people.

And they feel that for many reasons.

Many women have suffered trauma at the hands of male bodied people.

Many women have been brought up - indeed admonished and even victim blamed if they've done otherwise - to be extremely careful of their appearance and behaviour around male bodied people.

How many times have we heard variations on 'She was asking for it, doing, wearing, being like that' When a woman has been harassed, assaulted, or in some cases killed by male bodied people, who clearly have no respect for the bodies, or bodily autonomy of women.

And all this conditioning or education is supposed to be undone overnight??
Because threat from (some 🙄) male bodied people has gone away??


Because we as liberalised western women who do have something approaching bodily autonomy, and are at low (but not no) risk of assault.

Women are still getting harassed, assaulted, and killed on a daily based by male bodied people.

Of course those male bodied people doing those things are very rarely transwomen, transwomen are 'caught up in this' largely through no fault of their own.*


But to diminish and belittle (as bigoted) many women's concerns about the preservation of their safe spaces (whether they exist as a legal 'right' or not) is to diminish, and belittle the existence of not just women's trauma experienced at the hands of male bodied people now, but also that handed down (thanks patriachy) by the generations of violence, control, and exploitation.

I personally don't care if there are men in changing rooms, I go to the beach I get all my kit off, alongside men who do the same.

I do 'trad male' stuff for both work and leisure probs far more 'gnarly' muscular and adventurous even, than most of the guys on here.

But that doesn't stop me having empathy and understanding for women whose lives look a whole lot different, and are far more restricted than mine.

Just calling a bigot, any woman who feels disquiet about male bodied people (men or trans women) being in her space, doesn't help anything.

And there's a seperate part of the same problem. Trans men, who are women if you use her "reasoning" are supposed to be able to use the women's single sex spaces. They made their choice, now they can live with that choice. And we should have no problems accepting them. She's spoken for all women and all men. The thing is she doesn't want them in her spaces either. They should be accommodated in the men's facilities only. Her "logic" just doesn't stack up.

There's only one problem and that is all men. In this she includes trans men(She's never clarified the point raised earlier, so it stands that she views them as men).


*Try explaining that to her, she doesn't care what the views of others are on the matter, just her own.

 

[monkers]

And yet you expect people to read your posts (aka standard rants?)
Great listening skills there Monkers - top marks on a 'discussion' forum.

How can you know what it contains if you don't read it. ??

Bromptonaut is somebody who I have immense respect for. He has liked your post, so out of respect for him, I've read it.

I'm going to reply to your last line.

Just calling a bigot, any woman who feels disquiet about male bodied people (men or trans women) being in her space, doesn't help anything.

I don't. This is mischaracterisation.

I call a person a 'bigot' when they abuse others based on their difference or demand that their internationally assured human rights are diminished or removed.

The law sensibly points out, that public spaces can not be treated as private spaces. Private spaces and public spaces are separated by doors.

A communal area is a public area, it doesn't become a private area by dint of a sign on a door. I'm in favour of the etiquette, but that doesn't mean I have a right or expectation that it trumps the legally assured rights of others. A changing area becomes a private area when it has a door that separates it from a public area.

A trans woman with a GRC is a socially a woman by law. Campaigning against a law is one thing, but there is violence being perpetrated by bigots against trans people at least in part because alarmists are portraying trans people as 'predators, paedophiles, and groomers' thereby inciting hatred.

Violence against women is not challenged when women incite violence against others who have legitimate rights to live their lives in the way that they do.

 

[monkers]

There you have it, guys. Apparently your daughters and grandaughters have no right under the Equality Act to be away from male bodies whilst getting undressed. If they see adult male penises it's just tough luck. They should look away. Or stop doing the thing they enjoy if it requires privacy and dignity.

Despite the Equality Act saying that service providers can exclude males from certain spaces and serviced, even with a GRC, Monkers doesn't accept this. There is literally no service or space, including ones where women are vulnerable, that Monkers thinks men shouldn't be in.

They and we don't. It's just fact, but you need to take more responsibility, and stop ranting at the messenger.

They (children and grandchildren) have the right to undress in a private space.

The law can and hopefully will protect people from people like Stephen Wood / Karen White if they break the law. Any judgement of Stephen Wood's appearance is irrelevant to the law. Only behaviour that intends to cause alarm, distress, or harm can be challenged, and 'intent' is a big thing in criminal law.

In one case a woman had observed a person in a communal changing area that they perceived to be a trans woman. They waited until they were in the shower and then pulled back the shower curtain to reveal them to others as having a penis and getting noisy about it. Who was in the wrong? We'll likely disagree on that one.

Look Aurora if you want the right to be able to undress, change, etc in private, then I can support you. But if you want the right to undress in public and choose who else might see you or who you might see I can not.

I've said this to you before, it's fine to campaign for more availability of private spaces at pools etc. I'll probably join you.

However pretending that the law is not the law as it is intended is a fake argument let alone a cogent one.

It's clear that the language that you choose to use, and the lack of care that you exhibit to drag non-offenders in as guilty parties is troubling.

When you can not operate within the law, then you are the offender, not the person whose existence you take offence from.

 

[AuroraSaab]

And there's a seperate part of the same problem. Trans men, who are women if you use her "reasoning" are supposed to be able to use the women's single sex spaces.

I think people should use the facilities intended for their sex. If you think transmen should use male facilities, that's up to you guys.

There's only one problem and that is all men. In this she includes trans men(She's never clarified the point raised earlier, so it stands that she views them as men).

No, they are women. You can't change your sex. We all know that. All men aren't the problem, but enough men are a problem to make single sex spaces and services a necessity.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Look Aurora if you want the right to be able to undress, change, etc in private, then I can support you. But if you want the right to undress in public and choose who else might see you or who you might see I can not.

A changing room isn't 'in public'. It's a service provided by an organisation. You need to accept that the law allows service providers to exclude all kinds of people, including males with GRC's, under the Equality Act.

You simply think that by repeating that it doesn't people will accept males in single sex services because they are confused about the law.

According to you every Womens toilet, every separate changing room, every care provider guaranteeing single sex care, every womens only domestic violence refuge, all are breaking the law by even existing.

That simply isn't true, but you would very much like it to be for your own vested interest.

 

[mudsticks]

Bromptonaut is somebody who I have immense respect for. He has liked your post, so out of respect for him, I've read it.

I'm going to reply to your last line.



I don't. This is mischaracterisation.

I call a person a 'bigot' when they abuse others based on their difference or demand that their internationally assured human rights are diminished or removed.

The law sensibly points out, that public spaces can not be treated as private spaces. Private spaces and public spaces are separated by doors.

A communal area is a public area, it doesn't become a private area by dint of a sign on a door. I'm in favour of the etiquette, but that doesn't mean I have a right or expectation that it trumps the legally assured rights of others. A changing area becomes a private area when it has a door that separates it from a public area.

A trans woman with a GRC is a socially a woman by law. Campaigning against a law is one thing, but there is violence being perpetrated by bigots against trans people at least in part because alarmists are portraying trans people as 'predators, paedophiles, and groomers' thereby inciting hatred.

Violence against women is not challenged when women incite violence against others who have legitimate rights to live their lives in the way that they do.

Nowhere have I, or anyone else here endorsed any violence, or hatred against anyone.

And you've certainly done more than your fair share of mischaracterisation of others, and their position, on here (including of myself)


But I'm sorry, I've now decided that I can't reply to your post (not even to try to pick holes in a cherry picked part that supports my particular argument)

Until its been endorsed by someone whom I've decided has superior merit in their character.

That's how it works right??

 

[monkers]

A changing room isn't 'in public'. It's a service provided by an organisation. You need to accept that the law allows service providers to exclude all kinds of people, including males with GRC's, under the Equality Act.

The bar for this isn't low, in fact it is very high. Who decides under the UK system? That'll be the courts - they decide what parliament intended and also are required to take account of legal precedence, and international law.

These points have been tested in the courts and have legal precedents. So I found myself saying yet again, legal precedents become the law until they are overturned by a higher judge or by parliament.

In the meantime you need to take account of legal precedents, otherwise this is 'special pleading' or 'emotional pleading' like your daughters and grand daughters sketch.

The courts have set the legal precedents, trans women are entitled to use women's loos, women's changing rooms. In the case of prisons, trans prisoners can 'out themselves' by self-ID to the prison authorities' and request (but not demand a choice of placement). Placement is on a case-by-case basis of risk assessment.

None of this is my 'opinion' which you seem to pretend it is, and falsely present it as.

These are the facts. Facts which you try to ignore. The law and legal precedence are not something you can choose to ignore.

There is legal precedence for toilets, changing rooms, and prisons. None are subject to blanket bans, because the judges have ruled that in these cases the bar is set higher than the position that you pretend it is.

I'm not aware of a legal precedent for women survivors of rape / serious sexual assault / violence - there might be.

However as has become evident, these centres often do not exclude trans people from their services because their policy is to include. They are typically staffed by women with great joint experience who are deciding that providing services for trans women is not to detriment of cis women.

I've avoided saying much about sport, because the law is less definite here, but it does say that sporting bodies should decide, and that they should produce written justifications for their policies. I'm fairly quiet in my views on sport. I'm not satisfied that there is sufficient research. Neither am I satisfied with the claim that people transition just to become winners. I think the area is too complex to define in the broad terms that it is. I think that the requirement for the comparison between the performances of 'the average man' and 'the average women' are being followed. Instead we have comparisons between winners at high level of sport. In terms of cycling, this has no bearing on club level sport where women are often beating men, especially in endurance events. The Canada Review of the available literature was a valuable piece of work. I think the observation that trans women do have performance advantage, less because of puberty and testosterone but other factors is one that should make feminists sit up and take interest.

I believe Emily Bridges was treated very badly as an individual by British Cycling, but that was more a whinge from me about the manner in which they used their power than the decision.

I did note that after Ian H provided that excellent link about women's cycling clubs and groups objecting to, and campaigning against the heavy handedness of British Cycling and the CTT in excluding trans people; you fell silent. Let women speak, but only when they agree Glinner is it?

The question of intimate care is a very tricky one I'll agree. However throughout the time we've heard of cases of people refusing to be treated by others due to some difference, be that race, skin colour, religious belief, sex, sexuality, whatever. Invariably these are due to the bias we call bigotry. Many gynos are male, not sure it is such a different issue, but much less fuss made. My Mum needed a hysterectomy, the male consultant came around with students doctors, some male, some female. My Mum was asked if she minded. She said that it made her less comfortable, but unless they get to learn, then women will end up without treatment. That's the pragmatism of an adult.

170 000 staff have left the NHS in the past year. Nursing homes face tremendous difficulties in recruitment. It's a bad time to be demanding that only people of certain characteristics should be allowed to be giving care.

 

[monkers]

Nowhere have I, or anyone else here endorsed any violence, or hatred against anyone.

And you've certainly done more than your fair share of mischaracterisation of others, and their position, on here (including of myself)


But I'm sorry, I've now decided that I can't reply to your post (not even to try to pick holes in a cherry picked part that supports my particular argument)

Until its been endorsed by someone whom I've decided has superior merit in their character.

That's how it works right??

This is why I don't bother to read your stuff, because it starts with a massive false allegation that I've said that you endorse violence.

If you can't consider carefully what is said, or write a cogent argument, then please do not reply to me.

Campaigning against a law is one thing, but there is violence being perpetrated by bigots against trans people at least in part because alarmists are portraying trans people as 'predators, paedophiles, and groomers' thereby inciting hatred.

You see this? Read it carefully, or stop reading my stuff at all.

 

[AuroraSaab]

These points have been tested in the courts and have legal precedents. So I found myself saying yet again, legal precedents become the law until they are overturned by a higher judge or by parliament.

Where's the legal precedent for the exemptions allowed in the Equality Act being illegal? Why aren't Stonewall bringing hundreds of cases? A court ruled that the government could decide on prisons, if I recall correctly, but there's no legal precedent against males (or any other characteristic) being excluded under the EA if appropriate. Same goes for any other characteristic.

The courts have set the legal precedents, trans women are entitled to use women's loos, women's changing rooms.

Simply not true. Service providers can choose not to apply the EA exemptions, but they have no legal obligation to choose not to.

I did note that after Ian H provided that excellent link about women's cycling clubs and groups objecting to, and campaigning against the heavy handedness of British Cycling and the CTT in excluding trans people; you fell silent. Let women speak, but only when they agree Glinner is it?

Fell silent? It was one local club - who advertise themselves are transwoman inclusive - saying they disagree. No need to comment on something that has been rehashed on here a dozen times already. When sports organisations got around to asking women who compete the overwhelming response was to keep the Womens category for biological women. Small non competitive cycling clubs can do as they wish.

The question of intimate care is a very tricky one I'll agree. However throughout the time we've heard of cases of people refusing to be treated by others due to some difference, be that race, skin colour, religious belief, sex, sexuality, whatever.

Stop trying to equate people who want intimate care from someone of the same sex with racists. It's desperate stuff.

Nobody in their right mind thinks a paralysed woman who needs a carer to wash her privates, change her sanitary towel, evacuate her bowel etc. shouldn't be able to have that done by a female rather than a male who says he's a woman. For blindingly obvious reasons. Same goes for men who want same sex care.

 

[monkers]

Where's the legal precedent for the exemptions allowed in the Equality Act being illegal?

What the hell are you even thinking?

The legal precedent doesn't declare the exemptions in the EqA as illegal.

It uses the EqA as the basis that blanket banning trans people is illegal.

As I've tried unfailingly to tell you, the exemption are not low bar, but very high bar.

Simply not true. Service providers can choose not to apply the EA exemptions, but they have no legal obligation to choose not to.

Services can apply EqA exemptions only in exceptional circumstances (my choice of words).

Needing a piss is not an exceptional circumstance. Nor is needing to try on clothes.

In this circumstance, there was a legal judgement which you can think of as a ''landmark ruling''. Technically you are right, it doesn't make the cut as a legal precedent because the defendant didn't show, nor did any lawyer to argue the case. Therefore it wasn't a test case. The judge ruled that the defendant was incorrect to attempt to prevent a trans woman from using the women's toilet under the terms of the EqA and damages were awarded.

 

[monkers]

Fell silent? It was one local club - who advertise themselves are transwoman inclusive - saying they disagree. No need to comment on something that has been rehashed on here a dozen times already. When sports organisations got around to asking women who compete the overwhelming response was to keep the Womens category for biological women. Small non competitive cycling clubs can do as they wish.

It wasn't. You didn't read it, you didn't comment as I remember it.

 

[monkers]

Stop trying to equate people who want intimate care from someone of the same sex with racists. It's desperate stuff.

False / wrong claim.

Had I said the same people who refused care from black people are the same people who refuse care from trans people, then that would be an attempt to 'equate' it (I actually think you meant conflate it). Racism and transphobia are both forms of bigotry; you might think one form of bigotry is more less equal than another? However if you think they are unequal, that in itself is an indicator of bigotry.

 

[monkers]

Nobody in their right mind thinks a paralysed woman who needs a carer to wash her privates, change her sanitary towel, evacuate her bowel etc. shouldn't be able to have that done by a female rather than a male who says he's a woman. For blindingly obvious reasons. Same goes for men who want same sex care.

But what does the law say?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Nobody on here has ever said there are blanket bans of men or trans people or any other characteristic. The Equality Act allows the exclusion of all sorts of people in limited circumstances. It allows all the people who aren't in that cohort to be excluded, it doesn't have to be decided on a case by case basis.

It's legal, and perfectly reasonable, that a gay men's choir doesn't admit women or straight people. It's legal and perfectly reasonable that a society for black students doesn't admit people who are white or not students. It's legal and perfectly reasonable to ask for same sex intimate care.

The fact that you tie yourself in knots trying to prove these very common exclusions aren't legal is desperate stuff.

But what does the law say?

It says service providers can apply the exemptions of the Equality Act in order to ensure same sex care. Some might choose not to, but they don't have to choose not to, nor are they compelled to accept male carers for a post that only involves caring for women for example.

As far as I know, there's only been one legal case that challenges the EA exemptions and that was a 'first instance' case that set no legal precedent.

You have to wonder why Stonewall and the myriad of trans lobby groups aren't bringing law suits every week over the fact that hundreds of thousands of service providers are using the exemptions of the Equality Act on a daily basis. One of Stonewall's aims is to do away with these exemptions so they are obviously legal already.