The performance of the liberal legal commentator blokes who have sought to be the 'voice of reason' on the sex and gender debates, sitting above the 'toxic' and furious and women, while refusing to engage with the content of what women are saying is telling
It shows how if you are not willing to challenge the foundational logic of the trans rights activist orgs like RightsInfo, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence etc.. that "transwomen are women & anything else is transphobic" then you will have to throw women under every bus that comes
Because its no good just saying 'balancing rights' in theory, you have to be willing to be able to stand up for women some time. Males in women's prisons? Males playing contact rugby with women? These are extreme examples of real harms to women really happening ...
If you won't draw a line to protect women from discrimination, harassment & physical harm here, where will you draw it? But drawing the line anywhere means standing up to the bullies, including the economic bullies & that is too much to ask. So could women please just shut up?
The tragedy of all this is that there really is need for a grown up debate about how to protect women's rights & trans people's rights. As @GoonerProf points out, it starts w recognising that sex & being trans are different (as are disability, age etc...) forwomen.scot/public-meeting…
Thats why the Equality Act has separate protected characteristics. Sex =/= gender identity fairplayforwomen.com/single-sex/ Including trans people in public life does not depend on undermining women and girls boundaries, and their ability to organise politically.
That no grown up organisations have been willing to stand up (including orgs like @fawcettsociety) is why guys who i am sure are lovely & clever in other spheres are able to mistake their shallow pronouncements on this for wisdom & use any excuse for not listening to women
But women are not shutting up. And men are speaking up too. Time to be brave!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just taking a look back at what Amnesty International said very confidently to the Gender Recognition Act reform consultation in 2018 (they were advocating for removing all safeguards and controls from getting a GRC)
Giving out more GRCs will not affect anyone else they said.
It would have no effect on the operation of the single and separate sex exceptions in the Equality Act.
None on the occupational requirements exceptions in the Equality Act.
This is what we mean when we say sex matters. It is what the Supreme Court meant when they said you have to be clear about what the different groups are.
It's not a legal nicety. It's not complex. It's not difficult.
It's just basic respect for women's humanity, with common sense.
I am so angry at all the highly paid people failing to do their job, who would not see that it is abusive to allow men into women's changing rooms, toilets and showers.
And even now who are resisting implementing the law. @NotPostingMatt @NHSConfed
Minister @RhonddaBryant says “We are opposing the amendment and are not intending to introduce similar legislation.”
Let’s look at the knots he ties himself in
He says “data accuracy is important. That is equally true for any data used in a digital verification service.”
OK so your new law will enable people to prove their sex accurately then? 🤔
Bryant says “the government is already developing data standards on the monitoring of diversity information, including sex, via the Data Standards Authority.”
This is distraction.
Monitoring diversity information (which is about populations) is not the only reason why you want sex data.
Some times people want to make sure their sex is accurately recorded:
- For their own healthcare
- For social care
- For a job where sex matters
- For sport
- For safeguarding
- For use of single sex services
“the @StatsRegulation published updated guidance on collecting and reporting data and statistics about sex and gender identity last year, and all Govt Departments are now considering how best to address the recommendations of the Sullivan review, which we published.”
“That is the first reason why we will not be supporting this new clause or the amendment today.”
It says women only, which means no men.
It is lawful because the situation meets one or more of the “gateway conditions” for a lawful single sex service in the EqA, and it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Who does the sign discriminate against?
Men directly.
What all of them?
Yes, because they are all excluded by the rule. Even the femmes, the crossdressers, the transwomen, the non-binaries and the gender fluids.