• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's not actually true, but don't let the facts stand in your way. Stonewall certainly don't.
 
FFS:

729.This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination which allow the provision of separate services for men and women.

730.A provider can deliver separate services for men and women where providing a combined service would not be as effective. A provider can deliver separate services for men and women in different ways or to a different extent where providing a combined service would not be as effective and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex. In each case such provision has to be justified.

[...]

738.These exceptions would allow:

[...]

a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;

[...]

739.This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified.

740.This paragraph replaces a similar provision in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Example

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.
Click to expand...

If it's a proportionate act with a legitimate aim, including the belief that the presence of trans people would make women less likely to use the service, women's shelters can turn away trans people. It's the law, and it's quite explicit.
 
Indeed. Trans people do not have the right to access single-sex services without a gender recognition certificate. It's quite explicit.
 
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

7 Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.
Click to expand...

No gender reassignment certificate mentioned, and the criteria include people who would be excluded from having one.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...r-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals sharing a protected characteristic from discrimination and harassment. Protected characteristics include sex (being a man or a woman) and gender reassignment (an individual who is ‘proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process or part of a process to reassign their sex’). There is no requirement for a trans person to have any kind of medical supervision or intervention in order to be protected from gender reassignment discrimination.

Certain exceptions in the Act set out circumstances in which it is permissible to treat someone differently because of their sex or gender reassignment, for reasons of public policy or to protect the rights of others. The use of such exceptions generally needs to be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate objective. This will often require a case-by-case approach to determine what is legitimate and proportionate in any given circumstance.

Under the Act, the protection from gender reassignment discrimination applies to all trans people who are proposing to go, are undergoing or have undergone (part of) a process of gender reassignment. There are some exceptions permitting different treatment on the basis of gender reassignment, for example the exceptions related to single-sex services and associations. These exceptions do not hinge on whether or not an individual has a GRC. Any use of the exceptions permitting different treatment must be objectively justified, meaning that it must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and will therefore depend on the particular circumstances.
Click to expand...

Trans women have the right to access single-sex services for women with or without a gender recognition certificate, but the law also allows for exceptions to be made, if those exceptions can be justified.

Meadmaker is simply wrong about UK law.
 
And these exceptions are blanket, for entire categories. Therefore transwomen do not have any right to access whatever they choose.

It's not a case of making an exception for a particular person. It's a case of an organisation declaring that its service falls within the grounds for exception, and then all transwomen are ineligible for the service.
 
Belz... said:
Don't be like that. Rolfe isn't the only member of your audience.
Click to expand...

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I think it still applies.

I don't apologize for calling out TERF arguments when I see them, and they have definitely been proposed here, but I have been a bit sloppy in my replies. Apologies for that.


Squeegee has posted several times that this controversy over gender self-ID is largely an imagined one. It strikes me as solutions in search of a problem. The people running these clinics aren't experiencing a crisis over trans women. Outside of groups that are ideologically opposed to providing service to trans people, there doesn't really seem to be practical problem here.

This is a long thread, and I'll admit I haven't read it all, so forgive me if this is retreading well worn ground.

But what's the evidence that there is a systematic problem with trans women, even in places with no official ID requirements, using women's only social services?
 
Belz,

you took issue with my characterizing the Vancouver clinic as one with a TERF ideology. I know many take issue with the term TERF generally, considering it needlessly derogatory, and wouldn't use it in any circumstances.

But do you not see this clinic as one that has an ideology, rooted in what was once radical feminism of the 60's, with a hard-line on trans exclusion?

This clinic strikes me as not only appropriate for such a description, but practically a poster child. Given that they have been litigated, at least twice, over the issue of trans women, they've have made their position on the matter very clear.

According to their own statements, they think trans women, by virtue of being born and raised male, are incapable of experiencing the full extent of female oppression. This difference in lived oppression is significant enough to justify excluding trans women from women's only space. They won't train transwomen in their volunteer programs, they won't house transwomen in their shelters. They are polite about it, but it's unambiguously exclusion.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, and I understand that you may find the term TERF inherently uncivil, but how does the term, if it has any valid usage, not fit here?
 
Last edited:
I think the term TERF is rather useful, as it explains where the transphobic bigotry is coming from. Saying just "bigot" or "transphobe" doesn't explain the particular vector of the bigotry in this case, while TERF does explain it.

It it's seen by TERFs as an insulting term, they should look to their own bigotry.
 
uke2se said:
I think the term TERF is rather useful, as it explains where the transphobic bigotry is coming from. Saying just "bigot" or "transphobe" doesn't explain the particular vector of the bigotry in this case, while TERF does explain it.

It it's seen by TERFs as an insulting term, they should look to their own bigotry.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Are there any TERFs posting in this thread? I'm not asking you to name them.
 
uke2se said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.

All you are seeing is people who don’t agree with you. There is not a radical feminist on this thread to start with. If you think there is, prove it.

As I’ve said before the word TERF is a lazy insult without substance. Stop using it and I might listen to your argument. Otherwise.......
 
lionking said:
Utter nonsense.

All you are seeing is people who don’t agree with you. There is not a radical feminist on this thread to start with. If you think there is, prove it.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, though. You said you didn't ask him to name them and now you ask for evidence which will necessarily require quoting the person in question.

Rolfe. He's talking about Rolfe. The question is, does the label fit, and does that matter to the discussion in any way? The answer is maybe, and no, respectively.

So all this nonsense about TERFs is a red herring anyway. It doesn't matter if someone is a TERF or not.
 
lionking said:
Utter nonsense.

All you are seeing is people who don’t agree with you. There is not a radical feminist on this thread to start with. If you think there is, prove it.

As I’ve said before the word TERF is a lazy insult without substance. Stop using it and I might listen to your argument. Otherwise.......
Click to expand...

I thought you weren't asking me to name any. How am I supposed to prove that there are TERFs posting in this thread without naming them?
 
Society is by its very nature exclusionary. That's kind of why we have passports.

My locked front door excludes people not part of my household. The mandatory ID cards at work exclude people who don't work there. The electoral register excludes people who are not entitled to vote. Private clubs exclude people who aren't members. Border controls exclude people who aren't citizens of the country.

Exclusion is not in itself wrong or reprehensible.
 
Belz... said:
Wait a second, though. You said you didn't ask him to name them and now you ask for evidence which will necessarily require quoting the person in question.

Rolfe. He's talking about Rolfe. The question is, does the label fit, and does that matter to the discussion in any way? The answer is maybe, and no, respectively.

So all this nonsense about TERFs is a red herring anyway. It doesn't matter if someone is a TERF or not.
Click to expand...

It matters to understand the motivations for certain conclusions. When we're splitting hairs about admittance to women's shelters based on practical concerns, it's useful to know that an ideology that supposes all trans-people are inherently "the other" and dangerous is in the mix.

TERF ideology places a pretty heavy thumb on the scales of judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom