can we discuss feminism please

Rosie51 I come from a very honest place and I was actually concerned about what would happen to protected places but I choose when I am worried to do research and I came up with the law, which as far as I can see is quite definite about this. As far as enforcement is concerned then I would expect the relevant people to ensure it is applied properly. If they fail to do so this does not mean that the law is inadequate .Idon't claim to know by the way. The law is obvious. I posted it earlier but I will do it again

trisher I cannot communicate with someone so adept at either deliberately misunderstanding or twisting my words. Read my post for the current GRC I did not say any GRC.
You may claim to know the law allows for sex based exemptions but if you consistently deny any need or way of enforcing them then what are you? You can come back with as many insults or baits as you like, I don't believe you come from an honest place.

petunia I consider it anti-trans if you post misinformation as many have done about the legal position for transpeople. That is that single sex places remain protected where a reasonable case can be made that someone who is trans, even with a GRC would disrupt or disturb the situation. I posted the actual act for people to read.
The argument now seems to be that GRC will not be needed under self ID something no one has actually demanded as far as I know. It is a popular misconception which as far as I can see has been widely publicised by people wanting to stop self ID.

Rosie51 Where did the idea that self ID would automatically remove GRCs come from? Self ID would for most trans people involve a legal but easily accessible process which would result in them being given a GRC without the need for the long process now involved.
even if the process of legally changing gender was to be changed, trans people would largely support an official process such as declaring in court that you plan to change gender for life.

“All we have is the government talking about self-identification, but there was never any demand or desire in the trans community for a complete free-for-all,”
So GRC would remain and most trans people would like to see it a crime to claim a GRC with criminal intent.
Once agan an inaccuracy used to support a prejudice. Now you may claim not to be anti-trans but if you don't do your research and consistently post inaccurate information what else are you?

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

NellG

I don't think she does miss the point - Trans women are women. Women's rights to access single sex spaces are protected by law and will continue to be so.

Their status as women is given the same protection as the law that protects natal women from being discriminated against by right of the sex they were assigned at birth.

Where a situation/premises cannot act within the parameters of those protections there are legal exceptions.

To say that single sex places provide any protection because they are single sex spaces is ridiculous. In the case of refuges, the law allows them to exist as a single sex space, their safety is dependent on the calibre of the staff, the robustness of the policies and procedures, gates, cameras and secrecy. I can find only two references which cite criminal activity from transwomen who were given access to refuges. Both cases involve mental health issues, and were not caused by being trans - and in neither case was it proved that either had claimed to be trans in order to access single sex spaces.

As for toilets, changing rooms etc - a little plaque with a stick figure in a dress is hardly a deterrent and does not confer any protection from attack by women or men, trans or other wise.

And what was the point of the second link? It's just a blank page and doesn't support or negate any argument on this issue. Even if the page was removed due to complaints, without seeing the content no one can judge why people were complaining.

I have know idea what you are referring to , ‘blank page’.

Men and women who feel they are the opposite sex can express and present that as they wish however they can’t change sex, that is science. Therefore, expressing, presenting a feeling is not the same as being a biological woman or man.
I am not prepared to continue making that same point.

Trisher, you may consider I'm one of the anti trans brigade-by that I think you mean anyone who questioning the trans ideology. Ive gone quiet because this is like ground hog day. Theres only so many times I can get involved in conversations about loos.
The documentaries MBHP1 has mentioned are excellent by the way.

trisher

So explain the point to me MBHP1 because I don't understand.
There has been a lot of misinformation posted on GN about how women who have been the victims of vilolence would be forced to share spaces with transwomen who weren't . How women's swimming sessions would not be used by some women because of religious objections to sharing space. And about how there would be no protection for single sex spaces. When in fact the law states quite clearly that where a reasonable case can be made for doing it even someone with a GRC can be excluded from a meeting.

I do admire you by the way for coming back on this. The rest of the "I'm not anti-trans" brigade have gone very quiet since I posted the law.

I am not part of any brigade and I have not read anything that is ‘anti trans’.

trisher The rest of the "I'm not anti-trans" brigade have gone very quiet since I posted the law.

You continue to bait and insult but many of us kept quoting the laws you refer to and how there is a concerted effort to change those exemptions by conflating sex and gender. Self ID would remove any need for the current GRC so at that point there are no protections at all. As Galaxy has already said, organisations are abused when they try to maintain any sex exemptions. You have constantly asked how would it be policed, genital inspections at the door? You have no wish to see the exemptions enforced and it would be more honest to say so.

Because trisher organisations that try and remain single sex are targeted with threats and abuse. So legally Karen white for example should have been excluded from a womans prison but he wasnt and sexually assaulted the women in that facility. All we are asking is for sex segregation as detailed in the equality act to remain which I am afraid means excluding transwomen from certain spaces.

Just watched this on YouTube and would recommend...

‘Dysphoric’ is a four-part documentary series on the rise of Gender Identity Ideology, its effects on women and girls - especially in developing countries.

Synopsis:
In this dystopian world where misogyny is rampant, and womanhood is commodified, being female comes at a cost. Corporates capitalise on women's bodies blurring the lines of biological sex, and profiting from the emperically untested pseudo-science of queer theory. This gaslighting is aided by the complicity of media, academia, legal and the political world. It is no surprise that young girls are fleeing womanhood like a house on fire.
The past decade has seen a steep rise in the number of young girls seeking to transition by undergoing life threatening, irreversible procedures. ‘Dysphoric’ is a four-part documentary series on the rise of Gender Identity Ideology, its effects on women and girls - especially in developing countries.
The film explores gender transition, the permanent medical side-effects of hormones and surgeries, the propaganda by 'woke' corporations that glorifies thousands of stereotypical gender presentations coalesced as fashion, a surge in pronoun policing; language hijacking that calls women ‘menstruators’, and the many hurdles women face while trying to question this modern-day misogyny. The film amplifies the voices of detransitioners, clinicians, psychiatrists, sociologists, feminists, academics and concerned citizens.

So explain the point to me MBHP1 because I don't understand.
There has been a lot of misinformation posted on GN about how women who have been the victims of vilolence would be forced to share spaces with transwomen who weren't . How women's swimming sessions would not be used by some women because of religious objections to sharing space. And about how there would be no protection for single sex spaces. When in fact the law states quite clearly that where a reasonable case can be made for doing it even someone with a GRC can be excluded from a meeting.

I do admire you by the way for coming back on this. The rest of the "I'm not anti-trans" brigade have gone very quiet since I posted the law.

I don't think she does miss the point - Trans women are women. Women's rights to access single sex spaces are protected by law and will continue to be so.

Their status as women is given the same protection as the law that protects natal women from being discriminated against by right of the sex they were assigned at birth.

Where a situation/premises cannot act within the parameters of those protections there are legal exceptions.

To say that single sex places provide any protection because they are single sex spaces is ridiculous. In the case of refuges, the law allows them to exist as a single sex space, their safety is dependent on the calibre of the staff, the robustness of the policies and procedures, gates, cameras and secrecy. I can find only two references which cite criminal activity from transwomen who were given access to refuges. Both cases involve mental health issues, and were not caused by being trans - and in neither case was it proved that either had claimed to be trans in order to access single sex spaces.

As for toilets, changing rooms etc - a little plaque with a stick figure in a dress is hardly a deterrent and does not confer any protection from attack by women or men, trans or other wise.

And what was the point of the second link? It's just a blank page and doesn't support or negate any argument on this issue. Even if the page was removed due to complaints, without seeing the content no one can judge why people were complaining.

Edinburgh University has removed this page as a result of complaints.
www.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity/students/educateyourself/what-does-being-trans-and-or-non-binary-mean-new/what-is-transphobia?fbclid=IwAR3plBjBwPxhvap9DM4CQ0ln4pENHpBKh8UAYogclW3t7WjpNYzTpp6puIA

trisher

By the way you might like to correct your statement
Women and children have often used protected spaces to escape, hide, take time out, seek help from other women when they are under threat from a man/men.

Giving men the right to be in what was women and children’s protected space undermines all that feminists have fought for

Even transwomen can be denied access to a single sex place if there is a justifiable reason for doing so. So could we please stop spreading inaccuracies.

As usual, you miss the point!

By the way you might like to correct your statement
Women and children have often used protected spaces to escape, hide, take time out, seek help from other women when they are under threat from a man/men.

Giving men the right to be in what was women and children’s protected space undermines all that feminists have fought for

Even transwomen can be denied access to a single sex place if there is a justifiable reason for doing so. So could we please stop spreading inaccuracies.

Thanks MBHP1 I found the references to the census records interesting but wondered why they failed to mention the 1911 census and its inaccuracies due to the actions of the WSPU. Most historians regard it as being an inaccurate record because some women appear in places they were not (Emily Wilding Davison for one) and some completely disappear. It's difficult to justify the claim that the sex classification matters when women have actively refused to comply. Those who want to make this a matter for acion could always follow their lead- "If we do not count, we will not be counted." It would make for an interesting census.

This maybe an interesting read for those following this thread.

www.history.ox.ac.uk/women-and-equalities-law-historical-perspectives-present-issues

Doodledog

*Your failure to understand does not make anyone else's argument incoherent, it's just yet another attempt to deflect attention from the lack of evidence that expanding the use of the word woman has any negative effect on anything tangible - it simply appears to offend your sensibilities.*

Are you deliberately ignoring people who continue to point out that expanding the word 'woman' means the end of women-only shortlists, safe spaces for women, the end of places where women whose religion precludes mixing with men who are not family members can go, and so on. It is not about offended sensibilities - that is another of your extrapolations - it is about a genuine concern that these things are under threat.

There cannot be evidence that a change in legislation will affect women, as the legislation hasn't happened yet. We can't provide evidence for something in the future, but are expressing concern and asking that these things are considered and debated properly, without cries of TERF or a sweeping aside of these concerns as born of prejudice or phobia.

Is this such a big ask?

Anyway, I have had enough of saying the same thing over and over, and trying to argue with people who are ignoring the points that I am making, and telling me why I think as I do instead of listening to what I am saying. I'm out.

I agree with your post and I appreciate all your efforts.

Hope we can continue to share info etc on this thread.

Anybody want to apologise for spreading the erroneous idea that single sex places are not protected by law? It might be seen as a way of rousing anti-trans activism.

No one is ignoring anyone's points, just disagreeing with them. It's a coherent difference.

There have been similar legislation changes in other countries and studies/observations/articles of the consequences and effects. Plenty to cite.

I have never used the term TERF to describe anyone.

If you want to read it yourself
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

OK let's finish this single sex services are protected providing a reasonable case can be presented for denying someone access

Exceptions allowing services to be provided only to women (or only to men)

The first two relevant exceptions (Schedule 3, Paragraphs 26 and 27) allow service providers to provide separate services for men and women, or to provide services to only men or only women in certain circumstances. The symmetrical nature of the ban on sex discrimination means without these exceptions it would be illegal, for example, to hold women-only sessions at a leisure centre or a new fathers’ support group at a nursery.177

Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment

The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.

Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.

Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So the case is now being misrepresented.

Your failure to understand does not make anyone else's argument incoherent, it's just yet another attempt to deflect attention from the lack of evidence that expanding the use of the word woman has any negative effect on anything tangible - it simply appears to offend your sensibilities.

Are you deliberately ignoring people who continue to point out that expanding the word 'woman' means the end of women-only shortlists, safe spaces for women, the end of places where women whose religion precludes mixing with men who are not family members can go, and so on. It is not about offended sensibilities - that is another of your extrapolations - it is about a genuine concern that these things are under threat.

There cannot be evidence that a change in legislation will affect women, as the legislation hasn't happened yet. We can't provide evidence for something in the future, but are expressing concern and asking that these things are considered and debated properly, without cries of TERF or a sweeping aside of these concerns as born of prejudice or phobia.

Is this such a big ask?

Anyway, I have had enough of saying the same thing over and over, and trying to argue with people who are ignoring the points that I am making, and telling me why I think as I do instead of listening to what I am saying. I'm out.

Your failure to understand does not make anyone else's argument incoherent, it's just yet another attempt to deflect attention from the lack of evidence that expanding the use of the word woman has any negative effect on anything tangible - it simply appears to offend your sensibilities.

There is also a flavour of misandry about the repetition that men are intrinsically predatory that's pretty questionable too.

Once again, where the evidence that any of this affects your ability to live as, define yourself and call yourself a woman? Where is the evidence that women are under a greater threat by a change in legislation?

Or is it just how you feel about it that bothers you?

In the absence of the evidence I have repeatedly asked for (and yes, I've read the whole thread) I will rest my case.