> The body also advises that people who hold gender recognition certificates can be excluded from a separate or single-sex space as long as it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.
So exactly the same as any other protected characteristic covered by equality legislation. The devil, as always, is in the details of the specific cases where this is applied.
I hope one day we can see light at the end of this tunnel. Keeping an eye on the news regarding trans people’s legal rights in this country, as a trans person, has been a genuinely horrifying experience.
I’m not over the last huge piece of news from mere days ago in which conversion therapy is apparently an inhumane practice which needs banning, unless you’re trans, in which case go ahead because I guess existing as a trans person is just *that* abominable in the eye of the political class.
This news only feels like the latest in a multiple-years-long unending string of bad news wrought from the top down. The beat of the hammer doesn’t relent.
I think it needs to be more specific, perhaps such as locations and/or job roles. So it does not become either a cloud for hatred either way.
Sex and gender are different things. Transgender people are people whose **gender** is different from that assigned at birth. The services being discussed here are single-**sex**.
If you’re unhappy with this ruling on the grounds of it being socially regressive, then you are arguing that sex and gender are the same.
What I will say this discussion loses is that trans people, generally, **would like to** change sex and because that is biologically impossible, do as close as they can.
For that reason I do think arguments that single-sex spaces must close themselves to trans people who have done all they can to get as close as possible to that are somewhat mean-spirited. To me that’s akin to telling someone with prosthetic legs that sorry, this space is for people with *actual legs* only – as if the person with a prosthesis is deliberately *choosing* to have prosthetic legs rather than biological ones, if they were magically given free choice.
IIRC the courts have already pretty much established this as being the legal position anyway. The problem, of course, is that its not enough for the GCs. They want single sex services to be forced to ban trans people.
How is this ever going to work in reality?
“Oh err, excuse me. I think that person over there is transgender based solely on my opinion of what they look like. Can you Kick them out?”
Firstly are people actually going to say that, and secondly how is the employer going to be empowered to ‘double check’ the above complaint?
So what are they going to do to prevent me using a bathroom? Check my passport? Female. Birth Certificate? Female. GRC? Female.
Because I ain’t letting anyone look at my junk until SRS.
I don’t see where it’s ever “justifiable”. I also don’t see how this would be policed. It’s not like trans people walk around with a big “T” burned onto their foreheads. Shall we have someone inspecting people’s genitals at the entrances? It will, as always, come down to appearances, and many cis-gendered women will also face repercussions if they maybe look a bit masculine or a bit butch.
9 comments
> The body also advises that people who hold gender recognition certificates can be excluded from a separate or single-sex space as long as it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.
So exactly the same as any other protected characteristic covered by equality legislation. The devil, as always, is in the details of the specific cases where this is applied.
I hope one day we can see light at the end of this tunnel. Keeping an eye on the news regarding trans people’s legal rights in this country, as a trans person, has been a genuinely horrifying experience.
I’m not over the last huge piece of news from mere days ago in which conversion therapy is apparently an inhumane practice which needs banning, unless you’re trans, in which case go ahead because I guess existing as a trans person is just *that* abominable in the eye of the political class.
This news only feels like the latest in a multiple-years-long unending string of bad news wrought from the top down. The beat of the hammer doesn’t relent.
I think it needs to be more specific, perhaps such as locations and/or job roles. So it does not become either a cloud for hatred either way.
Sex and gender are different things. Transgender people are people whose **gender** is different from that assigned at birth. The services being discussed here are single-**sex**.
If you’re unhappy with this ruling on the grounds of it being socially regressive, then you are arguing that sex and gender are the same.
What I will say this discussion loses is that trans people, generally, **would like to** change sex and because that is biologically impossible, do as close as they can.
For that reason I do think arguments that single-sex spaces must close themselves to trans people who have done all they can to get as close as possible to that are somewhat mean-spirited. To me that’s akin to telling someone with prosthetic legs that sorry, this space is for people with *actual legs* only – as if the person with a prosthesis is deliberately *choosing* to have prosthetic legs rather than biological ones, if they were magically given free choice.
IIRC the courts have already pretty much established this as being the legal position anyway. The problem, of course, is that its not enough for the GCs. They want single sex services to be forced to ban trans people.
How is this ever going to work in reality?
“Oh err, excuse me. I think that person over there is transgender based solely on my opinion of what they look like. Can you Kick them out?”
Firstly are people actually going to say that, and secondly how is the employer going to be empowered to ‘double check’ the above complaint?
So what are they going to do to prevent me using a bathroom? Check my passport? Female. Birth Certificate? Female. GRC? Female.
Because I ain’t letting anyone look at my junk until SRS.
I don’t see where it’s ever “justifiable”. I also don’t see how this would be policed. It’s not like trans people walk around with a big “T” burned onto their foreheads. Shall we have someone inspecting people’s genitals at the entrances? It will, as always, come down to appearances, and many cis-gendered women will also face repercussions if they maybe look a bit masculine or a bit butch.