purenarcotic
Conveniently Pocket Sized
TERFS don’t ignore trans men at all, they say it’s lesbians who are being transed due to homophobia / women hating their bodies so much due to misogyny that being a man is more desirable.
[Sat 28th Oct 2017] London Anarchist Bookfair (London)
- Thread starter Kate Sharpley
- Start date
bimble
floofy
FabricLiveBaby! thank you for posting. She is so fucking brave.
I don't agree with what happened to Helen at all although I didn't see the incident, and that is a brave speech although I don't agree with a lot of what she's said elsewhere about this. But it is a shame that no-one chose to point out to that meeting that the changes that have so far been proposed will have no impact at all on whether or not transwomen are allowed into women only spaces.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
That may be a new thing. IME they’ve just pretended that they didn’t exist, but I may not be up on the latest.
There is an exemption in the Equalities Act which allows women's spaces to discriminate against trans women on the basis of proportional need. The all party Women and Equalities Commission recommended in their report this exemption be lifted and the Government rejected the proposal. There has been no indication so far they have changed their minds.
Athos
Well-Known Member
That's simply not true. The government didn't reject the proposal (no. 12) at all! Rather, it said "We agree with the principle of this recommendation...", and that it was keen to take into account further representations to inform future policy discussions. You're being demonstrably disingenuous to imply that that this isn't a live issue of legitimate concern for women.
sunnysidedown
caput mortuum
Is smokedout male?
What they said more fully is:
That is government speak for fuck off but this is just us covering our arses in case the political wind changes and this makes us look bad.
It wasn't mentioned in the consultation announcement, and it would require changes to the equalities act, which is not what is being consulted on.
What does proportional need mean?
Athos
Well-Known Member
Well, that's your interpretation. One with which many women disagree. It's ridiculous for you to keep making assertions that particular measures definitely won't flow from the proposed changes (directly or indirectly), and to insist that, therefore, women are wrong to want to discuss the issue.
It is not ridiculous to suggest that self-identification alone will not change access to women only spaces, and that is the only proposed new law so far. That is just the truth.
It's usually used to allow womens refuges and support services or people wanting a carer of the same biological sex to discriminate against trans job applicants or service users. It's a very simple process, they just need to make it clear when advertising the vacancy. It can of course be challenged in court if someone feels it is non-proportional but I don't think any claims have ever been brought.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No it doesn't. If the new mechanism for receiving a certificate is contained in an amended 2004 act, the issue is still live.
bimble
floofy
How is this done, in the adverts for these vacancies does it say ‘seeking cis woman for ... role’?
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense.
But, more's the point, it doesn't really matter what you or I think the proposed changes might mean; it matters what women think - that's why they have the right to discus it.
That is clearly not what the committee meant though is it. No changes were on the table when the report was produced, I doubt for one second they thought they'd get self-identification through (and they haven;t yet) and it looks to me like they've fudged the issue. But the stark fact remains that the government said no to even this and have not given any indication they have changed their position. When the consultation is finally published, if it is ever published now, we will know if they plan to change any other laws, but at present all they have said is they will streamline and demedicalise the GRC process.
How is it nonsense? It surely matters what the proposed changes actually are doesn't it?
Athos
Well-Known Member
The government didn't say 'no'. I quoted what it actually said. Just repeating this falsehood doesn't make it true.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Yes, but we don't know the specifics. We can't say what's not a possibility.
Usually by having a little note at the bottom of where the vacancy is advertised saying this position is only open to xxxx under the terms of the equalities act etc etc.
It can also be used for gender as a whole, or race in some circumstances.
The committee made a recommendation, The government said no but we'll keep it under review. That is a rejection. That's how it works. Things are often couched in soft language and can be under review for decades.
Athos
Well-Known Member
And?
But we can say there has been no law proposed by the government that will change trans women's access to women's spaces.
Athos
Well-Known Member
(my emphasis)
So, it's still under review. Exactly my point. That's why discussion continues to be legitimate.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, we can't say any such thing. The proposed move to self-identification (instead of a medical test) will radically alter the ease with which someone can gain access to women's spaces.
People can talk about whatever they want, but when a debate is so contentious then I'd suggest it's best to be accurate when discussing which changes to the law that the government has actually proposed so far. Unless of course you have another agenda and it suits that agenda to stoke up fears about these changes.
Similar threads
