Gender again. Sorry!

[AndyRM]

The absolutism in this thread is hard to come to terms with for me, which is why I have not contributed a great deal.

Anything to do with gender/sex/identification is an incredibly tricky area, which requires nuanced thought and consideration.

Will that be found in a world where media, of any kind, can subtly or otherwise, support an agenda? Unlikely.

Is there a solution? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem that way, which is a saddening thought.

 

[AuroraSaab]

No it is not the same meaning, but I'm not surprised that you struggle to realise this.

All nominated for Woman of the Year, not Transwoman of the Year. I hope they all contacted the organisers and corrected them and made it clear they weren't in fact women.

 

[icowden]

The absolutism in this thread is hard to come to terms with for me, which is why I have not contributed a great deal.
Anything to do with gender/sex/identification is an incredibly tricky area, which requires nuanced thought and consideration.
Will that be found in a world where media, of any kind, can subtly or otherwise, support an agenda? Unlikely.
Is there a solution? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem that way, which is a saddening thought.

The solution is in free and fair discussion. Some people disagree with this and think all discussion should be immediately stifled - with any attempt to position a discussion being categorised as "TERF".

See JK Rowling for further details.

 

[multitool]

,@AuroraSaab Please tell me you are just being deliberately obtuse and you are eschewing basic literacy skills to try and win a bad faith point

 

[AuroraSaab]

The absolutism in this thread is hard to come to terms with for me, which is why I have not contributed a great deal.

Anything to do with gender/sex/identification is an incredibly tricky area, which requires nuanced thought and consideration.

Will that be found in a world where media, of any kind, can subtly or otherwise, support an agenda? Unlikely.

Is there a solution? I have no idea, but it doesn't seem that way, which is a saddening thought.

Lots of solutions, Andy. Third spaces, additional unisex facilities, language like 'Women and transmen' instead of 'cervix havers', men being more inclusive, just for a start. But these are unacceptable to transactivists.

 

[monkers]

GRC is a process rather than a product. It is the process by which trans people are granted a birth certificate that makes their legal sex and their legal gender identity congruent. Trans people do not need to produce their GRC for any purpose, that would be discrimination. They can like anybody else be required to produce their birth certificate and/or a deed poll of change of name.

 

[monkers]

The Equality makes clear that where it is reasonable to say that prisoners whose record shows that they are a danger to women, are not to be considered for inclusion in a women's prison.

Does this include women who are a danger to women?

There is no law that discriminates against people with any protected characteristic - or at least there should not be, which is why the stop and search regime against black people on the grounds of 'reasonable suspicion' is so highly contraversial.

 

[AuroraSaab]

,@AuroraSaab Please tell me you are just being deliberately obtuse and you are eschewing basic literacy skills to try and win a bad faith point

I think you have got yourself in the same position as Nicola Sturgeon. It's an utterly illogical, untenable position to say they are sometimes women but sometimes not.

How can transwomen be women in some situations but not others?

 

[multitool]

Easily. They can be a subset of women, just as trans men are a subset of men.

This could be recognised in law IF and WHERE necessary...for example women's spaces.

The point is whether is it necessary to distinguish and where.

 

[monkers]

Ah, but if transwomen are women and have a GRC proving that that is so, then they are being discriminated against.


Does this include women who are a danger to women?


I agree. However there are some legal risks.
https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-56-issue-01/prison-accommodation-for-transgender-people/#:~:text=1.1 Equality Act&text=With regard to accommodation in,or their actual, gender reassignment.

So legally unless the prison service can demonstrate that there are special circumstances denying "Big Dave" from a transfer to a women's prison, he is entitled to be there if he says he is a woman. He doesn't even need the GRC, although he could get one to boost his claim without any diagnosis, surgery or lifestyle changes). If he says he is a woman, he is a woman. That's all there is to it.

You should have read all of the link you provided; or at least the conclusion copied below ...

1.5 Conclusion​

The key legal points to consider are:

1.5.1 Wherever possible transgender suspects or offenders have to be placed in a prison along with people from their chosen non-birth gender, whether or not they have changed their physical sex appearance or received a gender-recognition certificate.

1.5.2 This approach may only be varied under special circumstances where, for example, health and safety risks necessitate accommodation of a trans inmate along with prisoners from their birth gender or in isolation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There are no subsets of Women lol. It is simply anybody born female. Transwomen are a subset of men - and there's nothing wrong with that.

On what possible grounds would you include them as Women, but exclude them from Men? What do transwomen share with women that is exclusively shared by all women? That isn't stereotypes?

The only things all women share are their sexed body and the oppression they face because of it, which will vary. Everything else is cultural or personal expression that anybody, male or female, can do.

 

[monkers]

There are no subsets of Women lol. It is simply anybody born female. Transwomen are a subset of men - and there's nothing wrong with that.

On what possible grounds would you include them as Women, but exclude them from Men? What do transwomen share with women that is exclusively shared by all women? That isn't stereotypes?

The only things all women share are their sexed body and the oppression they face because of it, which will vary. Everything else is cultural or personal expression that anybody, male or female, can do.

I am going to quote you on this, because believe it or not I agree with you.

There are no provisions in the Equality Act for biological sex, only legal sex, and legal gender identity.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It didn't need to have provision because 13 years ago when the Equality Act was passed 99.9% of us would have never considered that 'Woman' would need to be defined as biological women. That's why there's no provision for biological sex; it was taken as read to mean that anyway.

Trans people are adequately covered under their own protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'.

I've said loads of times that we need to make some accommodations for people who are genuinely dysphoric, including changing passport markers etc. I just don't think these accommodations should override women's rights.

 

[monkers]

Thank you for agreeing that biological sex is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 was passed 6 years before the Equality Act 2010. Therefore when the Equality Act came into being there was a requirement to respect the rights of people previously given those rights under the 2004 Act. We can't alter chronology in order to stake a different claim to rights.

The Equality Act is nuanced on the phrase 'less favourable treatment'. It is also nuanced on perceptions, to paraphase, whether a person is of that sex or perceived to be of that sex. Likewise with gender identity - less favourable treatment on the perception of an individual's gender' identity is unlawful.

The problem for gender critical people is that they disagree with the Equality Act precisely because they are campaigning for less favourable treatment detailed and nuanced that is within the Act. They are campaigning for blanket exclusion that was made unlawful [edit] thirteen years ago.

You tend to say dah de dah de dah, 'and that's why we exclude them' while pointing to cases where they are included. The two statements are in conflict with each other and in one case in conflict with the Equality Act.

It isn't just the Equality Act that gender critical people find their views in collision with; there is international law from the EU, the Council of Europe, case law from domestic courts, rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, and then there's the United Nations. Even the United Nations Womens Group say that trans women are women.

That trope 'Woman: adult human female. It's a conflation of gender with sex used to cause confusion and act as a gotcha question. That works for both biological sex and legal sex. it's not a case of one trumping the other. There is no preponderance of one protected characteristic of sex over another sex or preponderance of one gender over the other of gender or vice versa within in the Equality Act.

Policing of whom people are or whom may enter whatever space by perceptions of who they are is unlawful.

* I made some edits attempting to tidy up my spelling and grammar.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Sex is a protected characteristic. In 2010 not a single person suggested 'sex' in the Act might include people of the opposite sex who had transitioned.

Gender Reassignment is also a protected characteristic. If people with their gender reassigned were already included under Sex, then you wouldn't need the additional category of Gender Reassignment to protect their interests.

It's perfectly permissible to exclude people if the reason is 'legitimate and proportionate'. Gay groups can exclude heterosexuals from their meetings. Black students can have associations which exclude white students. Disabled people can have their own events which exclude the able bodied. And women can exclude men. None of this is illegal if 'legitimate and proportionate'.