Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Nobody has said any different. It's the same for all protected characteristics. If you have a general medical service it would be the expected starting point that everybody is free to use it, regardless of age, race, sex etc.


There is no requirement to assess individual persons though, which is what you keep suggesting. If your medical service is specifically for one sex and age group - eg a men's mental health group session, for ages 18 to 30 - you don't have to assess each person who applies to decide if they can attend. You can say 'Men only, 18-30' and reject all applications to join from biological women and those over 30 or under 18.

This is not correct. The High Court ruled that trans women can not be subject to blanket bans on the basis of their identity. N could give you the full explanation in legal terms. If you read either the wording of the fact sheet, or the court judgement that stands as precedent, you will find that you are incorrect.

Nobody sensible would think such regulations are unreasonable.

That may be your view, but not one shared in human rights law, or by me.

 

[Bromptonaut]

There is no requirement to assess individual persons though, which is what you keep suggesting. If your medical service is specifically for one sex and age group - eg a men's mental health group session, for ages 18 to 30 - you don't have to assess each person who applies to decide if they can attend. You can say 'Men only, 18-30' and reject all applications to join from biological women and those over 30 or under 18.

Suppose a 25yo man who was born female but has transitioned to male, either (a) with or (b) without a GRC, seeks to join this service how should the provider deal with them?

 

[classic33]

As expected, any contradiction is met with the predictable descent into histrionics and a public unravelling aimed at discouraging further posts.

Which just happens to be your MO, along with accusations of if you don't agree with what i say, then you are for what I say others are wanting.

That picture, and quote, is very apt in your case. It sums up your attitude in a few short and simple words.
Be thankful for Ralph Waldo Emerson.

 

[classic33]

Nobody has said any different. It's the same for all protected characteristics. If you have a general medical service it would be the expected starting point that everybody is free to use it, regardless of age, race, sex etc.


There is no requirement to assess individual persons though, which is what you keep suggesting. If your medical service is specifically for one sex and age group - eg a men's mental health group session, for ages 18 to 30 - you don't have to assess each person who applies to decide if they can attend. You can say 'Men only, 18-30' and reject all applications to join from biological women and those over 30 or under 18.

Nobody sensible would think such regulations are unreasonable.

How do you do that part without asking questions, assessing each individual case?
To see that they fall within the criteria set out.

 

[multitool]

As expected, any contradiction is met with the predictable descent into histrionics and a public unravelling aimed at discouraging further posts.

What, like labelling someone a rape supporter? That sort of histrionics?

 

[AuroraSaab]

This is not correct. The High Court ruled that trans women can not be subject to blanket bans on the basis of their identity. N could give you the full explanation in legal terms. If you read either the wording of the fact sheet, or the court judgement that stands as precedent, you will find that you are incorrect.

I asked you for a link but you haven't provided it. The service provider does not need to assess each individual for their age or sex etc. They only need to assess whether restricting access to certain groups is justifiable and proportionate in that particular case eg toilets, changing rooms, particular classes or group meetings. It would be ridiculous and unworkable that every service provider had to assess each individual.

Again though, you are being disingenuous. Transwomen aren't 'banned on the basis of their gender identity'. They aren't banned for being trans at all but they can be excluded in limited circumstances because they are biological males.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Suppose a 25yo man who was born female but has transitioned to male, either (a) with or (b) without a GRC, seeks to join this service how should the provider deal with them?

If the service provider has decided that it's proportionate and legitimate under the terms of the EA to restrict their service to biological males of a certain age they need only explain why they are doing so and the EA advice is to help the applicant find a service that will meet their needs (in link below). It's up to the service provider to decide if they think it's appropriate to apply the exemptions against discrimination permitted by the EA. If the transman feels this exclusion is not legitimate and they have been discriminated against they can seek legal redress, just like a 17 or 31 year old could - both unlikely to succeed imo in this eg.

"Example: a group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow trans women to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are likely to be traumatised by the presence of a person who is biologically male".
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

Having a GRC is irrelevant for whether or not you are being discriminated against under the terms of the EA.

What's interesting is how nobody gets upset about age or ability restrictions. Nobody here is demanding able bodied people have access to services set up for people with disabilities. Nobody thinks a 40 year old can go to an under 12's swim session. It's only women who aren't allowed to have stuff just for them.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What, like labelling someone a rape supporter? That sort of histrionics?

The phrase was 'shilling for rapists'. It's far less histrionic than what we've seen on this thread in certain quarters.

I don't think you support rape. But if you think it's OK for male sex offenders to be housed with women, then you are shilling for rapists, aren't you? What else would you call it when you prioritise the desires of rapists over jailed women?

 

[multitool]

The phrase was 'shilling for rapists'. It's far less histrionic than what we've seen on this thread in certain quarters.

I don't think you support rape. But if you think it's OK for male sex offenders to be housed with women, then you are shilling for rapists, aren't you? What else would you call it when you prioritise the desires of rapists over jailed women?

You are full of shît, Aurora.

"Shilling for" has a very specific meaning. It is a very specific, deliberate act. It does not happen as a consequence of something else.

How very you to say something, then try and lie about it when held to account.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You're selling us the idea that men can be women and that the repercussions of accepting this fantastic and unevidenced claim has no effect on women and girls at all. Good job people are starting to see through the sales patter.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Snake oil trans salesmen

 

[multitool]

You're selling us the idea that men can be women and that the repercussions of accepting this fantastic and unevidenced claim has no effect on women and girls at all. Good job people are starting to see through the sales patter.

Trademark whataboutery from Aurora, when pinned down about her use of language.

It's no wonder so many (7?) have left because of you.

 

[classic33]

What's interesting is how nobody gets upset about age or ability restrictions. Nobody here is demanding able bodied people have access to services set up for people with disabilities. Nobody thinks a 40 year old can go to an under 12's swim session. It's only women who aren't allowed to have stuff just for them.

How do you know that about disabled facilities, or is it just another assumption on your part?
Disabled facilities are the "go to" when there's any issue with the ones people normally use. Pushing disabled people out by denying them access.
Usually done without any thought given to those they were built for.

Before the DDA 1995, there used to be a guaranteed interview scheme, whereby a disabled person was guaranteed a job interview, regardless of whether they could actually do the job they were going to be interviewed for. Not many objected against, but it meant you could end up being interviewed for a job you weren't allowed to do. I got up into double figures for driving jobs, despite the law saying "No" in very clear language.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Disabled toilets are one room with locking door, so are safe for anyone to use

 

[monkers]

Disabled toilets are one room with locking door, so are safe for anyone to use

I guess you are someone who thinks it OK to park in marked bays for folk with a disability- 'because it's safe for everyone'. This is the mindset on display.