The standard stream of half-truths, misunderstandings and outright lies we've come to expect on this subject. Before the Supreme Court ruling, the classes of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act were
- women
- trans men without a GRC
- trans women with a GRC
- for maternity discrimination, trans men with a GRC
Now they are
- women, however they identify
There is nothing 'unclear' or 'confusing' about this. It is, in fact, much clearer than before.
Also, the Supreme Court stated that forcing lesbians to accept males, however they identify, in their associations and gatherings 'infringes their dignity and autonomy'. Interestingly, you make absolutely no mention of this - it doesn't appear to occur to you that other people, not just cross-dressing men, have rights too. Like lesbians, who are sick and tired of men ruining their dating apps and events by 'identifying' their way in. No, the real victims are, as always, the poor men and their feelings. Lesbians don't even get a mention. Utterly irrelevant.
And the highest court in the land acknowledging them is described as a 'stitch up'. How awful it is that lesbians are just in the way.
Look, trans people are not 'banned from single sex spaces'. They simply have to use the space (and indeed, compete in the sport) that corresponds to their sex and not their nebulous, undefinable 'identity'. Absolutely nobody objected to this even ten years ago. Single-sex spaces were created for a good reason, and that reason was not to validate the fragile feelings of cross-dressing men. It was to afford dignity and privacy to women and girls in vulnerable situations. To allow elderly women to request same-sex intimate care and be sure the person bathing them is actually female. To allow teenage girls to get changed for sport knowing boys cannot 'identify' their way in. To allow lesbians to lawfully exclude anyone male, regardless of their 'identity' or what certificate they have. To allow rape victims (another group not worth a mention) to receive counselling from a fellow woman, not a man who thinks he is one. These are all good, healthy reasons which society agreed on until the trans movement came along and bulldozed them out of the way, bullying and shaming anyone who objected.
The Supreme Court ruling was what happens when an essentially faith-based, nebulous 'identity' movement collides with reality: other people have rights, and women asserting theirs is not a 'stitch up'.
Because the only people who have to use shaming, bullying and even legal action to try to force others to call them women are, in fact, men. Which is why you leap to their defence - you know they're men. If you really thought they were women, you wouldn't even notice them.
The standard Genital crackpot balderdash, I really don’t know how the Lesbian stuff got in lets face it no one has any right to have sex with someone they don’t want to! I cannot see the problem although I am not by any definition a lesbian although I have many freind who are. I as woman who has been recognised as such for the past 20 years now suddenly because of some weird court case within which no trans person participated with regard to the Equality Act I am no longer my lived gender. The EHRC guidelines will make most parts of my life untenable, I play sport, for me it is foremost a social activity and in social terms I am female and for the past 20 enjoyed being welcomed by my club and sporting association, true I have yet to see how this will unfold I have no idea how my employer is going to deal with the pressures put on it again I have know these people 40+ years and been an employee 10+ we have an inclusive attitude to all people the finalised guidance could quite easily make many aspects of this untenable. How it can be that a criminal misusing and abusing the law outweighs 9000 persons human rights is quite obviously utterly wrong but the genital crackpot cult don't care for that they have only one plan, the disenfranchisement and elimination of trans people from society.
what pains me most is the moral cowardice of it all from so many people.
Take the Supreme Court at its word. A law has a critical definition which is at odds with another law. This is clearly a cockup. Ok decide which definition is correct and legislate that. If you decide "carve outs" are required (Elite sport?) then do that but make it clear.
Just take a fng moral stand however and clearly state your position (even if its i dont know)
Word salad babbling nonsense interspersed with swearing from (yet another) bloke who feels qualified to comment on women's rights. By which I mean yes biological women.
Entertaining listening in the warts and all production values sense. Subject wise yet another depressing example of how everyone is bullied to bend the knee to interfering busybodies who are the opposite of understanding, caring, sympathetic souls. Just let people live their lives as best they can, playing the cards dealt by nature, nurture and circumstance, trying to get by without hurting anyone. Parliament and the courts should restrict their interest and intervention to the hurt bit of this, legislating to prevent deliberate harm and not to add restrictions to already difficult lives. And yes, statutory instruments are grossly misused by to lazy, the incompetent and the mendacious to avoid proper scrutiny.
Parliament did legislate to prevent harm (2010 ERA) but it seems you'd rather accuse women who want that legislation upheld of bullying than accept it's legitimacy.
The small number who are born non binary have rights to respect and protection. The Supreme Court judgement is being used to disadvantage them in favour cis women in a way the Supreme Court cautioned against. Predatory men are the problem not the trans community.
There's various cohorts among 'trans' , including transsexuals, transvestites, fetishist transvestites, ROGD teens, gender non-conforming babies and kids and of course autogynophiles. And nonbinary too now. These were either non-existent or separate groups at the time of the 2004 act so apart from those with a GRC, which certainly doesn't include non-binary, they are not legally recognized in that legislation. Women's right to sex segregated facilities goes back many decades. Where did anyone grant any non females the right to access these spaces? Where's the democratic legitimacy in forcing, without any discussion or agreement, women to accommodate men rather than just requiring men to accommodate men?
Non binary means just that. It doesn’t mean women and all others lumped under a rubric of men meaning non cis women. The people in between are the vulnerable ones and if I were a vulnerable person I’d feel much safer with women than with men if I was obliged to share with one or the other. Men make up the overwhelming majority of sexual and violent abusers so why force vulnerable people to share their spaces?
Ian Dunt wants parliament to allow those with a GRC to have access to women's spaces. That is at least superficially coherent, though the fact that GRCs are private and you can't ask to see one makes them useless.
Your position holds less water. Lots of people are vulnerable to male violence. The disabled, disfigured, old, infirm, weak, gay. These are immutable characteristics and by your logic they all deserve to be welcomed in by women. Non-binary is arbitrary, indefinable physically and changeable. There's no way to define it as a class and so no way to build a policy or law to accommodate.
You probably know that whereas normal men don't think to enter, there's a type of male with bad intentions that fervently wants access to female spaces. I don't understand why you want them in, but those who want them kept out are, by my estimation, the normal ones, not bullying, interfering busybodies, as you put it. By seeking to allow some men into women's spaces you're siding with badly intentioned men, even though you may think you're being kind.
I want nothing less than to facilitate men with bad intentions and I agree it’s a minefield. Where is the middle ground that accommodates the vulnerable caught in the middle?
Ian, I’ve never listened to the “podcast version” of Striking 13 before and was greatly entertained. I like how the real world interjects and I like your dog as guest star. However, I think I need to go back and read your original article in text form for it to make a better impression on my addled Friday brain. Anyway, thank you.
Entry of Thanos - great bit of showbiz stuff. Should just add that I didn't panic at the mention of the phrase "statuary instrument" because fortunately I've read a useful book called "How Westminster Works..." Phew. Love these audio versions of the Substack.
I'm pleased that you've re-introduced the correct opening to the podcast after last week's lapse.
The standard stream of half-truths, misunderstandings and outright lies we've come to expect on this subject. Before the Supreme Court ruling, the classes of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act were
- women
- trans men without a GRC
- trans women with a GRC
- for maternity discrimination, trans men with a GRC
Now they are
- women, however they identify
There is nothing 'unclear' or 'confusing' about this. It is, in fact, much clearer than before.
Also, the Supreme Court stated that forcing lesbians to accept males, however they identify, in their associations and gatherings 'infringes their dignity and autonomy'. Interestingly, you make absolutely no mention of this - it doesn't appear to occur to you that other people, not just cross-dressing men, have rights too. Like lesbians, who are sick and tired of men ruining their dating apps and events by 'identifying' their way in. No, the real victims are, as always, the poor men and their feelings. Lesbians don't even get a mention. Utterly irrelevant.
And the highest court in the land acknowledging them is described as a 'stitch up'. How awful it is that lesbians are just in the way.
Look, trans people are not 'banned from single sex spaces'. They simply have to use the space (and indeed, compete in the sport) that corresponds to their sex and not their nebulous, undefinable 'identity'. Absolutely nobody objected to this even ten years ago. Single-sex spaces were created for a good reason, and that reason was not to validate the fragile feelings of cross-dressing men. It was to afford dignity and privacy to women and girls in vulnerable situations. To allow elderly women to request same-sex intimate care and be sure the person bathing them is actually female. To allow teenage girls to get changed for sport knowing boys cannot 'identify' their way in. To allow lesbians to lawfully exclude anyone male, regardless of their 'identity' or what certificate they have. To allow rape victims (another group not worth a mention) to receive counselling from a fellow woman, not a man who thinks he is one. These are all good, healthy reasons which society agreed on until the trans movement came along and bulldozed them out of the way, bullying and shaming anyone who objected.
The Supreme Court ruling was what happens when an essentially faith-based, nebulous 'identity' movement collides with reality: other people have rights, and women asserting theirs is not a 'stitch up'.
Because the only people who have to use shaming, bullying and even legal action to try to force others to call them women are, in fact, men. Which is why you leap to their defence - you know they're men. If you really thought they were women, you wouldn't even notice them.
The standard Genital crackpot balderdash, I really don’t know how the Lesbian stuff got in lets face it no one has any right to have sex with someone they don’t want to! I cannot see the problem although I am not by any definition a lesbian although I have many freind who are. I as woman who has been recognised as such for the past 20 years now suddenly because of some weird court case within which no trans person participated with regard to the Equality Act I am no longer my lived gender. The EHRC guidelines will make most parts of my life untenable, I play sport, for me it is foremost a social activity and in social terms I am female and for the past 20 enjoyed being welcomed by my club and sporting association, true I have yet to see how this will unfold I have no idea how my employer is going to deal with the pressures put on it again I have know these people 40+ years and been an employee 10+ we have an inclusive attitude to all people the finalised guidance could quite easily make many aspects of this untenable. How it can be that a criminal misusing and abusing the law outweighs 9000 persons human rights is quite obviously utterly wrong but the genital crackpot cult don't care for that they have only one plan, the disenfranchisement and elimination of trans people from society.
what pains me most is the moral cowardice of it all from so many people.
Take the Supreme Court at its word. A law has a critical definition which is at odds with another law. This is clearly a cockup. Ok decide which definition is correct and legislate that. If you decide "carve outs" are required (Elite sport?) then do that but make it clear.
Just take a fng moral stand however and clearly state your position (even if its i dont know)
The opening has been restored 🙌 and a guest appearance by Thanos, what more could we ask for.
Word salad babbling nonsense interspersed with swearing from (yet another) bloke who feels qualified to comment on women's rights. By which I mean yes biological women.
Entertaining listening in the warts and all production values sense. Subject wise yet another depressing example of how everyone is bullied to bend the knee to interfering busybodies who are the opposite of understanding, caring, sympathetic souls. Just let people live their lives as best they can, playing the cards dealt by nature, nurture and circumstance, trying to get by without hurting anyone. Parliament and the courts should restrict their interest and intervention to the hurt bit of this, legislating to prevent deliberate harm and not to add restrictions to already difficult lives. And yes, statutory instruments are grossly misused by to lazy, the incompetent and the mendacious to avoid proper scrutiny.
Parliament did legislate to prevent harm (2010 ERA) but it seems you'd rather accuse women who want that legislation upheld of bullying than accept it's legitimacy.
The small number who are born non binary have rights to respect and protection. The Supreme Court judgement is being used to disadvantage them in favour cis women in a way the Supreme Court cautioned against. Predatory men are the problem not the trans community.
Non-binary?
There's various cohorts among 'trans' , including transsexuals, transvestites, fetishist transvestites, ROGD teens, gender non-conforming babies and kids and of course autogynophiles. And nonbinary too now. These were either non-existent or separate groups at the time of the 2004 act so apart from those with a GRC, which certainly doesn't include non-binary, they are not legally recognized in that legislation. Women's right to sex segregated facilities goes back many decades. Where did anyone grant any non females the right to access these spaces? Where's the democratic legitimacy in forcing, without any discussion or agreement, women to accommodate men rather than just requiring men to accommodate men?
Non binary means just that. It doesn’t mean women and all others lumped under a rubric of men meaning non cis women. The people in between are the vulnerable ones and if I were a vulnerable person I’d feel much safer with women than with men if I was obliged to share with one or the other. Men make up the overwhelming majority of sexual and violent abusers so why force vulnerable people to share their spaces?
Ian Dunt wants parliament to allow those with a GRC to have access to women's spaces. That is at least superficially coherent, though the fact that GRCs are private and you can't ask to see one makes them useless.
Your position holds less water. Lots of people are vulnerable to male violence. The disabled, disfigured, old, infirm, weak, gay. These are immutable characteristics and by your logic they all deserve to be welcomed in by women. Non-binary is arbitrary, indefinable physically and changeable. There's no way to define it as a class and so no way to build a policy or law to accommodate.
You probably know that whereas normal men don't think to enter, there's a type of male with bad intentions that fervently wants access to female spaces. I don't understand why you want them in, but those who want them kept out are, by my estimation, the normal ones, not bullying, interfering busybodies, as you put it. By seeking to allow some men into women's spaces you're siding with badly intentioned men, even though you may think you're being kind.
I want nothing less than to facilitate men with bad intentions and I agree it’s a minefield. Where is the middle ground that accommodates the vulnerable caught in the middle?
Thanos is owning this podcast.
Ian, I’ve never listened to the “podcast version” of Striking 13 before and was greatly entertained. I like how the real world interjects and I like your dog as guest star. However, I think I need to go back and read your original article in text form for it to make a better impression on my addled Friday brain. Anyway, thank you.
Entry of Thanos - great bit of showbiz stuff. Should just add that I didn't panic at the mention of the phrase "statuary instrument" because fortunately I've read a useful book called "How Westminster Works..." Phew. Love these audio versions of the Substack.