J K Rowling has nailed it - re Starmer and the trans issue

Whitewavemark2

Starmer is first and last a lawyer.

He follows the rule of law.

What he actually thinks - is his private opinion.

My opinion is that the Judge was right when he advised that this should not be looked at as a victory for anyone, and I am concerned that whilst there has been a settlement of a definition of a woman, it has not addressed the issue of a minority, who identify entirely with the opposite sex into which they were born.

In fact I think this judgement is only part of the answer to the entire issue.

Well said white wavemark2 🏳️‍⚧️

As we have said the interim guidance is now there for organisations to act upon.

Not all toilets in Australia are unisex. Currently, the National Construction Code (NCC) mandates separate sanitary facilities for males and females, with some exceptions for accessible toilets or single-gender facilities.

Thanks for posting the interim guidance Carlotta.

It seems remarkably sensible, which is such a change from the nonsense we’ve become accustomed to over the past few years. Sanity might be creeping back into the asylum.

Sorry, my post @ 08.40 was in response to nanna8 @04.40 this morning.

Good to see the common sense interim guidance.

Its very clear as far as it goes, which is really helpful - crucial details for some complex situations are needed, and also the question that if it is to encompass protection for trans people as promised it needs to be clear about provision. Also guidance on enforcement.

Yes Wyllow3.
It does need to be clear about provision and protection for trans people, but it’s not easy to know how or whether any such provision will be accepted.

It won't because that is not what it is about. It is about access to women's spaces.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the statistics (such as they are) when saying ‘I’m a woman’ doesn’t grant automatic access to women’s spaces.

You make a good point about enforcement Wyllow. I suspect that if TW behave like your friend and don’t barge into spaces with fanfare, it will be business as usual. What will stop will be men descending on lesbian dating events, using women’s swimming pools and so on. I wonder what will happen in Guiding and the WI.

There are a number of organisations like the WI that have welcomed transwomen, whether they feel the need to clarify or alter is up to them?

If exceptions are made it leaves the way open for abuse of the system, and negates the long and determined fight to establish biological women's rights. The fault lies with the extremely convoluted wording of the 2010 Equality Act, author Harriet Harmer, and Nicola Sturgeon's determination to impose her interpretation of it on women's rights.
All this (possibly) well-intentioned discussion will reinforce the desire of transwomen to assume the same rights as biological women, and we have seen and suffered the effect of that.

I know nothing of the WI but as a voluntary organisation it does have the right to make its own rules up - whatever they decide. I don't think that abusing the system. They now have the legal right if they so choose to ban transwomen.

Wyllow3

There are a number of organisations like the WI that have welcomed transwomen, whether they feel the need to clarify or alter is up to them?

There is a long-running controversy about that. I'm not a member, but my understanding is that there has been a backlash against their policy of allowing TW, as it contradicts their purpose of campaigning for issues relevant to women. Someone with more knowledge than I have may contradict this, but I think the controversy started when a TW joined and was welcomed, but rose through the ranks in very short order and is now in a position to influence policy on EDI. There may be more to it than that, but some members are very unhappy, and I believe there were mass resignations.

I don't think there can be legal compulsion for the WI (or anyone else) to refuse to accept TW, but it looks as though the guidance is saying that it can't advertise itself as being a women's institute, as if it accepts men that is not the case. If that's correct, they will have to decide whether to relaunch under a different name or to remain single-sex.

This is yet another way in which the TRAs have worked against the interests of 'genuine' TW, who have fitted in and contributed to the organisation. It does seem unfair on them.

Wyllow3

There are a number of organisations like the WI that have welcomed transwomen, whether they feel the need to clarify or alter is up to them?

I wonder if they will have to change their name if they still want to allow transwomen, but then if they allow those males can they justify keeping any other males out? That would surely amount to discrimination based on gender identity? It is going to take some sorting out going forward.

Cross posted Doodledog I'm such a slow typist.

Yes, read up on the controversy. It really is up to them to vote/thrash it out.

I'd be very sorry if the new guidance "forced" a change in name tho - that really does seem like going OTT for a very long established well known group, I dont really see why they should have to?

eazybee

If exceptions are made it leaves the way open for abuse of the system, and negates the long and determined fight to establish biological women's rights.

It certainly does.

Doesn’t involve me any more, but way back
I’ve read mention on GN from WI where they have admitted males, even though some women members were not happy about it, to avoid being called transphobic, the membership went ahead.

So what do they do now?
Support the women who are entitled to belong to a women only association and risk being called transhaters which seems to be the latest version of transphobic.
Or ignore the ruling. Pick a law you like.

And if there is one male, in a setting like that and more males want to join, should the rule be upheld or ignored.

Scouts or guides maybe need to introduce gender neutral scouts as well. That way females or males could opt to join the legally single sex group or mixed sex settings.
When DD was involved, her main objections and those of all the other parents of girls, were the sleeping and sanitation arrangements, where single sex provision was not available.

Scouts has been mixed sex for a long time, and they arrange rooms, changing facilities according to the fact that they are mixed sex. Guides can no longer say they are a single sex organisation if they admit boys. If they decide to go mixed sex they will need to provide appropriate facilities for each sex.

Galaxy

Scouts has been mixed sex for a long time, and they arrange rooms, changing facilities according to the fact that they are mixed sex. Guides can no longer say they are a single sex organisation if they admit boys. If they decide to go mixed sex they will need to provide appropriate facilities for each sex.

Absolutely!
Deciding to go mixed sex is different from being told to admit trans who were boys.

Organisations can't just decide to ignore the law. I confidently predict that the organisations that are saying they will break the law will be retracting those statements swiftly, once they have rested control of their social media account from the idiots who are currently running them.

It really is up to them to vote/thrash it out.

No, i don't think it is. The interim guidelines stated quite clearly that Membership of an association of 25 or more people

women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women).

That doesn’t seem to leave much margin to vote or thrash out; it would only take one member to make a complaint and the organisation would be in breach of the act andface legal action. This will affect WI and Guides I think.

This is on the WI's website, under "inclusivity":

No, men are not allowed to be members of the Women's Institute (WI)

As a trans identified woman is now a legally recognised man; it would go against their own constitution to continue their admittance. Apart from it being in direct breach of the law.

I have regularly challenged the WI on their acceptance of transwomen without a vote by the full membership of the WI. They got very narky with me and categorically said transwomen were women, which they blatantly aren’t. I am revving up to having another go at them.

I suggested that they should be honest and change the name of the WI to The Women’s and Transwomen’s Institute.

Doodledog

The TRAs are, indeed, misogynists, as are many so-called 'allies' who always foreground the rights of males over those of women, and yes, they have made things so much worse for those who were 'quietly' living as transwomen before.

It's all a mess, and I don't think we're out of it yet, as the practicalities still need to be sorted out.

I don’t know how knowing what a woman is is deemed a mess.