What is a lesbian?

FarNorth

The Equality Act 2010 allows for single-sex stipulation to be made if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I'd say the aim of having a lesbians', or gay mens', dating night be for one sex only is legitimate and simply stating it to be so is a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim.

What was all that campaigning for gay rights about, and what do gay rights even mean, if anyone at all can claim to be the sex they wish to be?

Of course it does. And doing so could have been done within the law without needing to know about anyone who for any reason has chosen to attend the event.
However the organiser chose to use as her reason a graphic description of someone who may or may not have been a transperson. Understandably transactivists were annoyed about this and considered her comments as transphobic.
The stereotypes of Jewish people sometimes portrayed have been roundly condemned and are not acceptable. Why then is it OK to accuse someone who wore lycra and apparently had an erection (personally I think it was the old rolled up socks trick) of being a transwoman. They might have been or they might not.
She also discussed an incident in a toilet which was almost an assault.
Now both of these incidents could be true. The problem is that in seeking to make the event only for natal women the organiser used them as examples of transwomen's behaviour and reasons why the event shouldn't be open to transwomen. Transpeople naturally found that offensive.
As I have said she did it badly. It could have been done legally and without reference to any behaviour.
It isn't fair or just to accuse a whole section of society of bad behaviour because of one or two individuals

Have you backed off from the idea that it is only when women refuse to attend if transwomen are going that an event can go ahead without them?

Or are you now agreeing that the law says that where there is legitimate interest in having an event for one group then it is ok to keep it to members of that group?

Doodledog

Have you backed off from the idea that it is only when women refuse to attend if transwomen are going that an event can go ahead without them?

Or are you now agreeing that the law says that where there is legitimate interest in having an event for one group then it is ok to keep it to members of that group?

I've always considered the law as saying if natal women wouldn't attend if transwomen did then providing single sex provision was legitimate.
I do think that any organisation wanting to apply the law should first of all consult the women who belong to it. It's simply a way of empowering women and ensuring democratic decisions.
I do think decisions taken by individuals and imposed on others are patriarchal in nature.

but doesn't the point of view of decisions being taken by individuals and imposed by others also include a trans woman who takes it upon themselves to attend a speed dating event for lesbians?

I think it's fair to assume that the organiser wouldn't have felt the need to ask anyone who might attend if they'd object to the presence of trans women, because she understandably in my view wouldn't have expected them too.

The law isn't about one person's consideration of it, though. It is what it is. We have been told (by you) for years that it is simple - if women would refuse to attend an event that includes transwomen it can be kept as women-only; but if women don't refuse to attend then it has to be open to transwomen.

I am in no way continuing an argument here - this is not an argument, it is a simple question. Are you now saying that this was simply your 'consideration' of the law, or that you stand by it as the truth, in which case could you please link to the relevant clause, as I am unable to find it myself?

I’ll wait for the link to the relevant clause, but in the mean time, as
Smileless2012 said
but doesn't the point of view of decisions being taken by individuals and imposed by others also include a trans woman who takes it upon themselves to attend a speed dating event for lesbians?

Surely the point of view which deserves respect is that of the organiser. In any other circumstances, events or occasions, whether private or public, respect would be given to the request of the organiser and infiltrating events dishonestly would be condemned.

I would have thought that too Mollygo.

Smileless2012

but doesn't the point of view of decisions being taken by individuals and imposed by others also include a trans woman who takes it upon themselves to attend a speed dating event for lesbians?

I think it's fair to assume that the organiser wouldn't have felt the need to ask anyone who might attend if they'd object to the presence of trans women, because she understandably in my view wouldn't have expected them too.

Wow so now you speak for all lesbians!

Mollygo

I’ll wait for the link to the relevant clause, but in the mean time, as
Smileless2012 said
but doesn't the point of view of decisions being taken by individuals and imposed by others also include a trans woman who takes it upon themselves to attend a speed dating event for lesbians?

Surely the point of view which deserves respect is that of the organiser. In any other circumstances, events or occasions, whether private or public, respect would be given to the request of the organiser and infiltrating events dishonestly would be condemned.

Not quite sure how one person attending an event can be described as imposing their views on others.
By that rule all political events can only be attended by people who agree with the organiser, which basically means any anti-fascists should stay away from right wing rallies. No one should protest. Activists can only go to meetings where their ideas match the organiser's, which defeats the object of protesting really.

Glorianny you were asked not to argue.
It’s fair to say that if you think Smileless2012 is speaking for all lesbians (she didn’t say that) that you are also doing the same thing, speaking for all TW. 🤣🤣

Hang on! Wasn't there a lot of support for a man at a Pride rally who sported a T-shirt and hat that advertised an anti-trans organisation? Is that different? His views didn't match he organisers.
And earlier on this thread an advert which asked for transpeople and their allies t attend was loudly condemned (although it didn't ban anyone)
So the concept is anyone can attend any meeting as long as their ideas match yours?

Doodledog

The law isn't about one person's consideration of it, though. It is what it is. We have been told (by you) for years that it is simple - if women would refuse to attend an event that includes transwomen it can be kept as women-only; but if women don't refuse to attend then it has to be open to transwomen.

I am in no way continuing an argument here - this is not an argument, it is a simple question. Are you now saying that this was simply your 'consideration' of the law, or that you stand by it as the truth, in which case could you please link to the relevant clause, as I am unable to find it myself?

I don't know if you missed my post above, Glorianny, but to save us all from being told regularly for the next few years that events can only restrict entry to women if they make it clear that they wouldn't attend if transwomen were coming, and that is not, in fact, the case, can you please give us an answer?

To save you looking, I have quoted it for you .

DodledogThe guidance of the Equality Act was updated in May2022, as always I abide by the law. So if it changes so do my views.

Oh. My views are my views. Sometimes I think that laws are fair and occasionally I think differently. I feel the same about 'guidance' in training courses and so on - my views aren't really influenced by others' rules in that way, although if I am persuaded by reasoned argument I may change my mind.

Anyway. for avoidance of doubt - has the law changed to say that it is now legal for women to attend women-only events? In that case, your comments upthread about how you would have supported the organiser of the dating event if she had complied with the law are rather odd, aren't they?

Glorianny
So the concept is anyone can attend any meeting as long as their ideas match yours?

You certainly seem to think so.

The concept is that honest people would not attend an event if they had been requested not to do so.
Insisting that TW who are male and therefore not lesbians have the right to attend a lesbian event whether or not some lesbians might be happy to see them there is endorsing male dishonesty, but that’s your choice.

I suggest you read the guidance Doodledog I'm really not here to explain the law to you.
The law is what it is. I may have a view on how sensible it is, but it is what decides matters.

Mollygo

Glorianny
So the concept is anyone can attend any meeting as long as their ideas match yours?

You certainly seem to think so.

The concept is that honest people would not attend an event if they had been requested not to do so.
Insisting that TW who are male and therefore not lesbians have the right to attend a lesbian event whether or not some lesbians might be happy to see them there is endorsing male dishonesty, but that’s your choice.

Funny how you never reply to a whole post Mollygo. No comments about the man at the Pride rally? or the advert for a Pride event?

So lesbians in relationships with transwomen are "endorsing male dishonesty" I'm sure that will make them feel much better.

Yes Doodledog. Dishonesty is endorsed by Glorianny if it admits males to lesbian events, even if hiding that behind they should have gone through the law.

Glorianny

Hang on! Wasn't there a lot of support for a man at a Pride rally who sported a T-shirt and hat that advertised an anti-trans organisation? Is that different? His views didn't match he organisers.
And earlier on this thread an advert which asked for transpeople and their allies t attend was loudly condemned (although it didn't ban anyone)
So the concept is anyone can attend any meeting as long as their ideas match yours?

The LGBAlliance are not an anti-trans organisation if that's the man you mean, they're a pro LGB organisation. If being pro women, or supporting the sexuality of being LG or B is anti-trans then surely that trans pride march was anti-women and anti LGB as it was only celebrating and promoting the T? Being homosexual or bisexual are sexual orientations, the umbrella of trans covers transgender and a whole lot more including trans species and trans age.

Glorianny

I suggest you read the guidance Doodledog I'm really not here to explain the law to you.
The law is what it is. I may have a view on how sensible it is, but it is what decides matters.

Ah. You have explained the law so many times that I take this to mean that your post upthread was based on misinformation? Good. Now at least we won’t keep hearing that ‘all it takes’ is for women to refuse to attend an event to make it legal for them to claim it for themselves.

Rosie51

Glorianny

Hang on! Wasn't there a lot of support for a man at a Pride rally who sported a T-shirt and hat that advertised an anti-trans organisation? Is that different? His views didn't match he organisers.
And earlier on this thread an advert which asked for transpeople and their allies t attend was loudly condemned (although it didn't ban anyone)
So the concept is anyone can attend any meeting as long as their ideas match yours?

The LGBAlliance are not an anti-trans organisation if that's the man you mean, they're a pro LGB organisation. If being pro women, or supporting the sexuality of being LG or B is anti-trans then surely that trans pride march was anti-women and anti LGB as it was only celebrating and promoting the T? Being homosexual or bisexual are sexual orientations, the umbrella of trans covers transgender and a whole lot more including trans species and trans age.

The LGB Alliance has been described as a hate group by Pride in London, Pride in Surrey, the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights, the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain, barrister Jolyon Maugham, Green Party of England and Wales co-leader Carla Denyer, journalist Owen Jones and Natacha Kennedy, co-chair of the Feminist Gender Equality Network. Broadcaster India Willoughby has described the group as "baddies masquerading as the good guys." The group has also been described as "anti-trans" by the Trades Union Congress and Hope not Hate. Paul Roberts OBE, CEO of LGBT Consortium said of LGB Alliance "they exist to oppose free, safe and empowered trans lives"

I forgot to say that chap simply sporting a tshirt and cap with LGB on them was so threatened and bullied by the "accepting, inclusive" mob that he had to have police protection to get him to a place of safety. How very "kind"

Sorry to pop in to be frivolous but I’m losing the will to live never mind argue.
Gloryanny, I read the list you posted of those who describe the LGB alliance as a hate group. I see Owen Jones is one of them. That’s it for me. If OJ opposes it, there must be something positive about it,

It is going to be very interesting to see the back-pedalling of some of the more reputable examples of trans supporters you have given above, * Glorianny* .

It is starting already, and now that it is clear that the general public understands biological realism, even when their ‘leaders’ tell them to think otherwise (we are back to individual thinking again, aren’t we?) they are going to have to reconsider their position before the election gets too close.

The likes of IW will no doubt continue to believe the biologically impossible, but India’s rants have always been delusional.