The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

"So we need to look at people's human rights and make sure everyone can access all support and services they need." VioletSky

Of course. That is what all the posters on the subject have been saying all along. No-one has ever said "Take away the support and services they need."

Exactly which support and services are inaccessible to trans people, and how do you suggest they are made accessible?

They have all the things on Amnesty's list, as in Doodledog's post:
The right to life
Freedom from torture
Protection from slavery and forced labour
The right to liberty and security
The right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
The right to private and family life
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
The right to marry
Protection from discrimination
Protection of property
The right to education
The right to free elections

VioletSky

I don't agree

I've already explained how discrimination affects human rights

Sorry VS. Did I miss something?
Where have you explained how discrimination affects females rights?
Or do you just deny that you can see any such discrimination?

VioletSky

If you read the equality act, we have given certain groups (women included) protections to stop their rights being infringed upon.

Some groups have been given special protections to ensure their access to housing, employment, services, medical care and facilities and thus, food, shelter, hygiene etc...
Because there are those who would discriminate and deny those basic needs...

I don't know how else to explain it

But, doesn't biological men, (whatever they call themselves), encroaching on biological women's previously held "safe places", by insisting on having access to them, infringe the rights of biological women?

Other rights, such as they are, such as housing, education, medical care, benefits, access to food etc., already apply to all groups in this country.

Disability groups, and charities, have campaigned, for many years, for additional services, of course. Some have been successful, some not.

We need the equality act to protect certain characteristics (I agree all 9 are needed) to ensure everyone's rights are protected. It was created due to need.

So women have rights to single sex spaces, trans people also have rights to access spaces that align with their gender identity.

Science as a whole accepts that transition is the right approach to gender dysphoria

So it follows that by accepting that transition is medically necessary for many individuals then we must accept their gender identity.

Courts have ruled that based on the knowledge we have so far, misgendering cannot be done with impunity and we cannot keep trans people out of toilets or otherwise discriminate against them by barring them from spaces there is no evidence they are actually harming women by using.

It's just occurred to me this is my last day off and I should go do something fun with it...

So you aren't saying that transpeople are being denied human rights, but that in your opinion there should be more added to the list?

That's rather different, as it is no longer saying that those of us who do see this as a biology thing are guilty of human rights abuses, which would be a libellous thing to say.

So. Now that we have established that no human rights are being denied to transpeople, how do you explain that both transwomen and men share the same gametes, as do transmen and women?
Clue - it's in the biology, which no amount of 'presentation' and/or surgical reconstruction of the body can alter.

No science does not say that it is beginning to say exactly the opposite with regard to young people so thanks but no thanks. I wont be following those suggestions.

There is no evidence that men in womens spaces is not harmful is also not accurate.

Courts have ruled that based on the knowledge we have so far, misgendering cannot be done with impunity and we cannot keep trans people out of toilets or otherwise discriminate against them by barring them from spaces there is no evidence they are actually harming women by using.

Perhaps you should tell that to trisher, then, as she is always telling us that if a woman won't use facilities because of transwomen then they can have them barred.

Can you link me up to where courts have ruled that based on the knowledge we have so far, misgendering cannot be done with impunity, please? I'd be very interested to know which law is broken if someone gets a so-called 'gender pronoun' wrong, and what the punishments have been.

The last I read was that courts had the autonomy to rule, case by case.

www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2022/02/16/admission-to-women-only-spaces-and-case-by-case-assessment/

Hmm. Not quite the same as ruling against 'misgendering' (with penalties) and insisting on free access to women's spaces though, is it?

Maybe VS can link us to whatever it was she was talking about?

Doodledog

Hmm. Not quite the same as ruling against 'misgendering' (with penalties) and insisting on free access to women's spaces though, is it?

Maybe VS can link us to whatever it was she was talking about?

No, I haven't read that. The EHRC said that, if biological sexes object on certain grounds, to their spaces being used by "identifiers" then those spaces can be reserved for their original purpose, providing there's an explanation. Nothing about all this seems to be enshrined in law, much as some would like it to be.


''Summary
The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex.

To establish a separate or single-sex service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of sex is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety.
You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.

There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act.
However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.

When considering how your service is provided to trans people, you must balance the impact on all service users and show that there is a sufficiently good reason for excluding trans people or limiting or modifying their access to the service.

Some service providers may find it helpful to have a policy for how services are provided to trans people. Where this is the case we recommend you develop a policy but this is not a legal requirement.
If you do have a policy you should be prepared to consider whether particular circumstances justify departing from the policy"

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and-gender

All of that is interesting and measured, and definitely allows for interpretation when it comes to 'reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety'.

There is nothing there about penalties for misgendering either. I'm sure that it would have made the news if the law had changed to such an extent that 'misgendering cannot be done with impunity'. For one thing, people need to be given fair warning if laws carrying penalties change, as that comes under point 6 on the list of Human Rights, 'freedom from punishment without law', and for another, it would have to be very clear how people were supposed to be sure of the sex and the so-called 'gender' of the person in question.

Bringing in a law against misgendering would certainly throw us into the sort of territory where people are asked to declare their pronouns before entry to events or facilities, which would risk forcing declarations from those who don't want to make them, which would counteract the right to privacy and family life, which is also enshrined as a Human Right.

trisher

*Ilovecheese*if you constantly post things which link transwomen with rape or sex crimes you are denigrating them. (Imagine if somone was to do this about all men because some are rapists and paedophiles, there would be an outcry of "not my son/brother/husband). You also give people who are transphobic ammunition and justification for trans attacks.
A man holding a placard with 'darlin Many gay men call women and men this.
Because men who are transactivists are abusive how is that anything to do with intersectional feminists? Supporting transrights is just the same as supporting any other rights and intersectional feminists recognise those rights.

Sorry for not responding for such a long time, just got back to the thread.
I don't think I have constantly posted the things that you say.

"A man holding a placard with 'darlin Many gay men call women and men this." This has not been my experience in real life with colleagues and neighbours.
and in any case, an equal ops threat is still a threat.

What I mean is, if trans activists were not so unpleasant, maybe women and transwomen could try and come to some agreement to advocate for safe spaces for transwomen apart from female spaces. What seems to have happened is that women and transwomen are being set against each other, by men.

Ilovecheese
What seems to have happened is that women and transwomen are being set against each other, by men.
Yes indeed and by females supporting the actions of those men.

I agree too.
And I've had a flash of memory about the woman who wrote about gender roles in Indonesia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead
She was one of the early American feminists. A social anthropologist.

Well Transrights are highlighted By the UN www.unfe.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/UNFE-Transgender.pdf
I'd draw your attention to No. 3 in the media section Do not propagate negative and harmful stereotypes about trans people.
Something which has consistently been part of these threads.

No one has yet explained to me how the sight of Nic in a woman's refuge wouldn'tbe traumatic for a woman frightened by men, but the sight of a transwoman would.
Or how men could be stopped from entering changing rooms and loos if they just claimed they were transmen.

If women were sure that men were not allowed in refuges, then in the unlikely event that they came upon a transman in one, they would, presumably, have been told to expect him, and there would be no need for trauma.

If a man pretended to be a transman to gain entry to a female loo, he could only be up to no good (unless you are about to attempt a 'gotcha' with an unlikely scenario as to how he could be in there legitimately). It would make far more sense for transmen to use male loos, where they would present no threat to anyone, which is what this is all about, despite your determination to make it about discrimination, and about the transphobia we keep saying is not an issue, but you claim to know better.

Doodledog

If women were sure that men were not allowed in refuges, then in the unlikely event that they came upon a transman in one, they would, presumably, have been told to expect him, and there would be no need for trauma.

If a man pretended to be a transman to gain entry to a female loo, he could only be up to no good (unless you are about to attempt a 'gotcha' with an unlikely scenario as to how he could be in there legitimately). It would make far more sense for transmen to use male loos, where they would present no threat to anyone, which is what this is all about, despite your determination to make it about discrimination, and about the transphobia we keep saying is not an issue, but you claim to know better.

So you can solve women's trauma by simply telling them there are no men about. And then they see Nic. Forgive me if I think they might just doubt your word and believe their eyes. I thought it was partly the appearance of transwomen that might upset them.

If there is to be equality under the law and transwomen are not permitted to access female loos how then can we give permission to transmen to use a male loo? That's inequality under the law and that has been responsible for women being mistreated throughout history.

It doesn't matter what anyone says, you are going to rubbish it, and come up with reasons why it can't work.

Everything in the 'trans rights' sphere involves women moving aside and making room. Transmen don't present a threat to men in the way transwomen do to women. The law needs to find a way to deal with that, not people on here. All we can do is object when we feel that we, or our daughters and granddaughters, are at risk. As transwmen are male, why not let the men find a way of dealing with their problems, instead of expecting us to do it?

Mollygo

Ilovecheese
What seems to have happened is that women and transwomen are being set against each other, by men.
Yes indeed and by females supporting the actions of those men.

A shame that biological women have to argue with men, who think they are women, and some women, who are women.

Not really progress. ?

Transmen actually face quite a lot of inequality (I cant imagine why this would be, complete mystery!) so they are not allowed to inherit titles etc if they are the eldest and transition, it appears that in terms of medical care lots of the decisions made were based on transwomens experiences and strangely enough that model doesnt fit for transmen, in Canada? or USA I cant remember transmen are starting to organise collectively as they are stating that the dominant voice is that of transwomen and that their experience is very different.

Almost as if sex inequality remains a factor.

DiamondLily

Mollygo

Ilovecheese
What seems to have happened is that women and transwomen are being set against each other, by men.
Yes indeed and by females supporting the actions of those men.

A shame that biological women have to argue with men, who think they are women, and some women, who are women.

Not really progress. ?

No men involved in my questions about transmen unless you believe transmen are men.

The only answers the gender critical can give when problems are raised that show there is more to the trans debate than simply banning transwomen is that it's all the fault of men who think they are women. Which is a bit ridiculous and totally ignores women who think they are men.

As for blaming women for supporting men when the question you are being asked is about a transman you think is a woman anyway, how can men possibly come into that? It's a woman asking a question about someone you think is a woman. The fact that transmen make the problem more complicated and less clear than simply men pretending to be women, and your prejudices don't provide answers to that area of the matter, is not the fault of the women pointing out the inadequacies in them. But I can see you would need to blame someone.

Galaxy

Almost as if sex inequality remains a factor.

No? I'm shocked and stunned to hear that. Unbelievable.