Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
monkers
Squire
Home alone again eh?
classic33
Missen
And for all you've posted, what happens if service providers deem that provision of a fourth space just isn't workable/too costly. As a result they go to a single area, it's easier and cheaper for them to manage one space than multiple spaces. Should you feel you require a special area, you pay for it.
CXRAndy
Legendary Member
Funny you should say that, wife and child away on residential summer course.
I'm fortunate I've got my other children coming around for pub lunches this week
Something that's a physical impossibility for some
monkers
Squire
Funny you should say that, wife and child away on residential summer course.
I'm fortunate I've got my other children coming around for pub lunches this week
Something that's a physical impossibility for some
I'm still on leave. The house feels eerily empty.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
It happens because over the last 10 years the likes of Stonewall have sown confusion amongst service providers and promoted the law as they wish it to be. That shouldn't be taken as consent from women or a situation that is unrectifiable.
Sure, like James Barry. They had to go to extraordinary lengths to deceive though. Women have never had access to men's single sex spaces just by superficial appearance.
No checker was needed until recently because people upheld the social convention of using the services appropriate to their sex. Hopefully now the law is clear people will return to that.
Because a dna check isn't necessary. Checks of any kind have only become necessary because some have insisted on breaking the social convention. If someone took a 10 year old child to a 10 and under sports camp organisers probably wouldn't ask for a birth certificate. If lots of parents started sending their 15 year olds, they would probably start asking for evidence of age.
Men accessing women's spaces is a problem that men have created and women are expected to tolerate it because you can't screen for dna or something. It was self policed pretty well - with back up only when required - for a hundred years, now all of a sudden it's too difficult....
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Shaman
Same applies to disabled people does it? If they can't get up/down the stairs to the regular toilets or changing rooms there should be no obligation on the pub/workplace/sports ground to provide an accessible one? Or is it just women's needs that shouldn't be taken in to account?
classic33
Missen
But they'd be able to use the single area. If the other areas are removed, treatment would be equal, we'd not be denied a service being given to "non disabled" people.
You'd be surprised how many buildings have inaccessible areas, ranging from dressing areas to eating facilities, to entrances/exits. And not all disabilities prevent the person from using what is there. Blinkered minds are just another example.
monkers
Squire
and
These two statements are mutually exclusive to each other.
Statement (b) of this pair shows that you acknowledge that it was never against the law for people to use the services that align with their needs, In that, you are perfectly correct. Statement (a) demonstrates that ''social convention'' is something you perceive and believe to be true, but you accept is not entrenched in UK law. That is a system of belief and not legal certainty.
The consequences of your words:-
Stonewall never ''promoted the law they wish to be''. In fact they stated the law as it was, that there was no law that said that men could not enter women's spaces, and women could not use men's spaces. The deeming provision in the GRA in concert with the provisions of the Equality Act fully allow trans people to select the services that align with the legal sex and gender identity. According to Vera Baird, it wasn't even necessary to have a GRC to do so. What she did say is that those with a GRC are protected on the grounds of sex, and those without a GRC are protected on the grounds of gender reassignment. Reading the documents that were used by Baird and Field to guide the EqA through both houses, shows that this interpretation is indeed what parliament intended, and anything else is as in your own style ''magical thinking''.
As Naomi Cunningham herself has noted, the constraint on the perception of social convention is that exposure of genitals (and that's either way round) can be tantamount to sexual harassment. As @icowden has told you, times aplenty, the law pertains to conduct not a system supposed by you for him not to be present there. Using the facilities is acceptable conduct. We don't need to provide a list examples of unacceptable conduct to expand upon that, but women do this all the time. I've often exited a cubicle only to unintentionally and unavoidably catch sight of a woman exposing her parts. Technically that could be argued as sexual harassment in the same way as ''cottaging'' used to be an arrestable offence (importunity) in the case of gay men.
Not closing the door while with your lower half is undressed is the breach of conduct, not mere presence.
In other countries different social cues apply. What you are claiming is that a Victorian sense of etiquette holds legal preponderance. It doesn't. Ian's reading of UK law is the more correct.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Shaman
This is just the same nonsense argument you've touted for years. There's no law that says I can't go in the under 5's ball pool either. The Equality Act gives management the right to prevent me diving in there in the first place and the right to remove me if I do (and always did, as the supreme court made clear).
icowden
Shaman
Are you actually reading what you write? You have just stated that a transwoman should use services for women.
It hasn't actually changed.
monkers
Squire
I've no doubt that the contained information is very similar to anything monkers has posted. She was rarely uninformed, partly because she would usually check legal points with me, until I pointed her eventually towards co pilot, which replies well to legal questions. As we tend to say, ''it identifies the dots, but we still have to join with lines to reveal the picture.''
Last edited:
monkers
Squire
Not a valid comparison. Children under the Children Act are a protected vulnerable group, so that act engages. The manager of the premises would be entitled to remove you, and prevent your entry again on a lifetime basis. This is because they have duties under the Health & Safety Act. Their failure to prevent exposes them to risk if a child was harmed by your actions. Although no statutory law applies, the parents of the injured child might choose to take out civil action against you, and depending on the severity of an injury, they might well succeed. So your argument, as usual, has no legs, since no statute does not guarantee legal immunity from a proximate harm caused.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Shaman
No I have not.
It has changed because thanks to obfuscation from activist groups service providers were discouraged from enforcing the Equality Act exemptions. Men in women's football teams wasn't an issue years ago and it would have been unthinkable that men were allowed to access women's rape crisis services.
Now the law is clear service providers can meet their obligations to single sex services without fear, and they are starting to do so. As of today:
monkers
Squire
You have often rebutted other posters' contributions as ''appeals to authority'' even in cases where they actually quote the authority. In this case you have appealed to authority via an organisation who are not authority. The ultimate authority is statute where available. What you have posted is an opinion which has the value of piffle.
I have referred you to both the relevant legal texts in statute and the explanations of how they function - these are authoritative.
Last edited:
