In the last 2 weeks, the EHRC said trans people stop using their preferred toilet & the PM's spokesperson suggested that trans women are not women by law. Several organisations have fallen in line behind them. But each of these statements is wrong. iandunt.substack.com/p/everything... - ThreadSky

iandunt.bsky.social • 2 days ago

In the last 2 weeks, the EHRC said trans people stop using their preferred toilet & the PM's spokesperson suggested that trans women are not women by law. Several organisations have fallen in line behind them.

But each of these statements is wrong.

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about

Comments

georgeous.one•2 days ago

This is really good, but I think you give Starmer too much credit. The trans kneejerk alongside the disability cuts suggest his government is not a liberal one at all.

vulcress.bsky.social•2 days ago

Its like various sections/bodies within society been waiting for this now just totally caving in. These are human beings yet the way its being reported. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cz01z4rdx4no Sporting bodies sat on this issue for over a decade

wappingbloke.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think it’s worse than caving. A lot of these organisations have wanted to do this for a long time and this is giving them cover. We should stop talking about these people and groups as if they want to resist but can’t. They want to do this for the most part

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

Sports organisations recognising that males don’t shrink by calling themselves women and can seriously harm smaller, lighter females when they tackle them is “giving them cover”? The FA has been holding out against this for years, despite all the scientific evidence against it.

wappingbloke.bsky.social•2 days ago

What evidence? From what I understand there's some evidence that trans women who went thru male puberty have an advantage in some sports. I am not aware of any scientific evidence that trans women pose increased physical danger in sport.

Plus they aren't "males calling themselves women"

jax1712.bsky.social•2 days ago

There is evidence. Males at puberty develop stronger denser bones and greater muscle density basic facts. Any girl /woman that has brothers will concur. Thats without training.

wappingbloke.bsky.social•2 days ago

Ok and where is the evidence that results in trans women posing an increased danger to other women in amateur sport? More than, say a particularly large cis-woman who you presumably wouldn’t seek to ban?

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

They retain male advantage: height, limb length, heart and lung size, muscle will regain strength more quickly. In contact sports, their greater weight and speed poses a risk to lighter (female) players. Rugby banned on this basis.
They’re still male. Hormones don’t change your sex. Nothing does.

wappingbloke.bsky.social•2 days ago

So is there a height and weight limit you would apply to women's sport for safety reasons? Would you allow and short and slight trans-woman to compete? If size is the issue, surely one would have weight groups like boxing or rowing.

notafanbut.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yes but if they are taking horm9nes that advantage is very quickly eroded...

kuyvonbraun.bsky.social•2 days ago

Sex & gender are not binaries as any expert in the field can tell you (who don't seem to have been consulted).

Obvs Starmer had nothing to do with the ruling, but I think he saw it as a slam dunk for Reform voted & Big D. Labour have made a total mess.

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

They are binaries, as any developmental biologist will tell you. And as much as anything, that’s why we have just Male and Female toilets. (And Disabled for those who have physical problems with access but who are still only male or female.)

tharook.bsky.social•2 days ago

Do you know of any reasoning or argument that concludes “therefore sex is binary”, rather than takes it as a premise or asserts it by definition?

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

We can determine rapidly that humans don’t reproduce asexually. Then the key question is whether it is binary or something more complex. We search for more complex modes of reproduction but find nothing: no third gamete ever involved.
Therefore sex is binary. Then the question is how we decide sex.

tharook.bsky.social•2 days ago

So, essentially:
1. Humans reproduce sexually.
2. Humans have two kinds of gametes.
3. Human sex is binary.
Yes? I’m afraid that 3 simply does not follow from 1 and 2.

kuyvonbraun.bsky.social•2 days ago

It’s admirable that you’re trying, but they’ll never, ever change their mind.

Could get Professor so-&-so from a leading institute to patiently explain it to them & Charles would still assume he knew better…

charlesarthur.bsky.social•1 day ago

We observe two kinds of gametes - a binary system. Those are the “sex” in “sexual reproduction”. We observe that people only ever produce one or the other, not both.
This doesn’t leave any room for other sexes. Any other hypothesis needs the predictive power this one already has.

payitnomind.bsky.social•2 days ago

Germany, for example, recognizes three sexes in law so perhaps this story has some plot holes in it

Like the one where you assume every human has a reproductive role

kuyvonbraun.bsky.social•2 days ago

Their argument, such as it is, is merely their uninformed preconception presented as fact.

They won’t ever change their minds though, that would involve admitting they were wrong (impossible)

kuyvonbraun.bsky.social•2 days ago

Thank you cis man with no expertise in the field who felt compelled to interject his opinion since surely it matters, its *his opinion*

Sheesh!

judyw.bsky.social•2 days ago

No such thing as cis. You don't need a medical degree to know the difference between male and female. Sex is totally binary or our species wouldn't be able to reproduce itself.

kuyvonbraun.bsky.social•2 days ago

You all seem to be...of a certain age. Perhaps explains why you take your assumptions to be facts (in your defence I doubt you've ever been challenged on them).

"Cis" most certainly is a thing, learn Latin.

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

Pretty sure biology hasn’t radically altered in the period between your two parents (one male, one female) getting it on and the present day.
If sex isn’t binary, name a third sex or gamete.

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

Please do let us know about your expertise in the field that led you to suggest that sex is not binary. Bonus: tell us exactly how many sexes there are, in humans.

alastairc.uk•1 day ago

Binary implies one or the other, but it doesn't seem that simple. E.g. people with XY chromosomes can grow up female and even (very rarely) give birth https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/
Layer on the complexity of hormones and psychology, it seems logical that some people won't fit the binary view.

kuyvonbraun.bsky.social•1 day ago

Charles doesn't want to hear it & chooses to believe alternative facts...

charlesarthur.bsky.social•1 day ago

Your lack of biological comprehension is quite sad. Thinking karyotype is sex is GCSE stuff.

charlesarthur.bsky.social•1 day ago

Karyotype is not sex, and using that as your explanation for “sex is not binary” shows a lack of understanding. How many gametes are there? Exactly two. How many sexes involved in sexual reproduction? Exactly two. Is sex therefore binary? Yes.

alastairc.uk•1 day ago

In read that the Equalities act and/or the judgement used chromosomes as the basis. My point was that forcing 100% of people into 2 categories on that basis won’t work.

charlesarthur.bsky.social•1 day ago

If you read that, whatever told you it was wrong, so you need better sources. There are only two sexes, and everyone fits into them, regardless of the very small number who have unusual karyotypes (but are still only male or female).

fathomdeep.bsky.social•2 days ago

"Furthermore, most people didn't care. Outside of a few prominent gender-critical voices in the media, there was no great groundswell of complaints by cis women in hospital wards or in toilets."

Yes, there was. It's telling that you didn't notice it (though you're not unique here).

kenhepburn.bsky.social•2 days ago

It’s hard to hear those other voices when you’ve got your fingers in your ears, tbf.

fathomdeep.bsky.social•2 days ago

"It is clear from the repeated statements of the Supreme Court that this ruling is not supposed to mark a fundamental alteration of trans rights."

Yes, 'cos trans activists were wrong when they claimed a GRC gave access to Equality Act compliant sex-segregated spaces. As many GC folk long argued.

jimmy-r.bsky.social•2 days ago

I heard this and I don’t remember where. But if a trans man who is biologically a woman but looks and dressed as a man walks into a woman’s toilet ?

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

They look like a woman by height and build, and nobody cares.
If they’d rather go into the men’s, they can. Again, nobody cares.

jezthomp.bsky.social•2 days ago

Says the man. I never understand the hatred for females wanting to be safe.

bjerkley.bsky.social•2 days ago

What is a woman's height?

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

Average women’s height is about 5’3” in the UK as of 2012 (last large scale sample). Men on average 6in taller, and heavier.

bjerkley.bsky.social•2 days ago

So that doesn’t really help with those who aren’t the average height or build (and indeed allows male presenting cis men of below average height and build to access with no issues).

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

If you seriously think women can’t distinguish men from women, you know too few women, or don’t talk to them enough.

philg42.bsky.social•2 days ago

It's what happens when you go for simple definitions of complex realities. You get laws which do not deal sensibly with real situations.

jayjaybee.bsky.social•2 days ago

The wider reporting on this issue doesn’t help. There’s an implication that the SC ruling ‘requires’ restriction of trans access rather than setting out the circumstances where limitations would be permissible. Massive political cover for anyone looking for an excuse.

rhid83.bsky.social•2 days ago

Mate I've written a thread on this as well it's a legal quagmire I am seriously hoping the Code of Practice due to come from the UK govt in June is a lot stronger on protections for trans individuals.

iandunt.bsky.social•2 days ago

Have bookmarked to read properly

rhid83.bsky.social•2 days ago

Honestly I nearly gave up half way through it myself so if you make it to the end you deserve a medal (I'm really selling this I know) I'll stick to the legislation and let you do the content because you've honestly nailed it with this. I bloody hope this code of practice guidance helps.

bhur.bsky.social•2 days ago

📌

johnw60.bsky.social•2 days ago

Excellent article very clear on the issues. The UK was in the Goodwin case found to be in breach of the convention by denying trans recognition. That’s why the GRA was brought in. The Solicitor General in 2009 made it clear the Equality Act would do that. It’s unfortunate the judges ignored both.

samproctor.bsky.social•2 days ago

Very worrying piece. Starmer doesn’t have the guts to grasp the nettle. Which means an all out altercation with the ECHR might blow up with a toxic mix of anti trans anti Europe and anti human rights bigotry throwing us into a Reform recipe from hell

woke66.bsky.social•2 days ago

The Supreme Court said that there would be no winners or losers from their judgment, but that’s clearly a lie because what we are currently witnessing now is the eradication of trans people from public spaces and society.

judyw.bsky.social•2 days ago

Have a look at this piece from Private Eye Ian. Uncritical adoption of Stonewall misinformation has harmed a lot of people, women, LGB people, unhappy adolescents, and not least, the original and truly vulnerable transsexuals.

williambone.bsky.social•2 days ago

I'm sorry but that is nonsense. Where in that piece did it talk about the mass smearing of Trans Women as threats? Where did it talk about the radicalisation of GC activists who pumped out piece after piece calling for the revocation of access that Trans Men and Women have had for decades?

jlc-science.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think I can see the point about Mermaids, Stonewall and the unwanted attention that some trans women receive because of them. Having said that, it is disappointing that eye has not recognised how radicalised and co-opted to the far right the GC movement has become.

williambone.bsky.social•2 days ago

Mermaids was set up in the 90s to support trans young people. Stonewall only bothered to support trans people in 2015. Is it a case that trans people had poor advocates or is it a case that anti trans activists went on the attack against the organisations which sought to defend them?

jlc-science.bsky.social•2 days ago

I simply don’t know and would like to, oddly my own interest in this stems from the GC movement attacking gender neutral toilets in schools - knowing a bit about bathrooms I found that particular argument among the most batshit.

williambone.bsky.social•2 days ago

I've got a trans cousin and an ex who worked for LGBTYS. So I got a crash course on various bits and bobs

judyw.bsky.social•2 days ago

Trans women as a category are no less a threat to women than all men. It is impossible to tell which men are dangerous until it's too late. This is one important reason why we have single sex spaces for women.

williambone.bsky.social•2 days ago

We're talking about toilets. If you want to talk about DV or RC spaces I would have a little more trust in the GC argument if GC's would stop gunning for trans inclusive DV/RC providers. On the "threat" point, the Swedish Study doesn't show that. As demonstrated by the study's author.

judyw.bsky.social•2 days ago

I'm not gunning for anyone, I'm simply asserting women's much needed right to single sex spaces for safety, privacy and equality of opportunity. Do you think women shouldn't be entitled to basic single sex rights?

williambone.bsky.social•2 days ago

Funny how not gunning for anyone has involved ignoring the already established protocols for ensuring single sex spaces, which are used already to ensure single sex DV, RC, changing rooms etc. The tools are already there, already in use by organisations like Berias Place and NIA.

bjerkley.bsky.social•2 days ago

I wonder how many LGB people actually feel that the gender critical approach helps them in any way, not least now the EHCR are trying to undermine many of the groups and orgs that have long been established by us.

msalliance.me•2 days ago

It’s almost as if these people were waiting for a validating excuse.

strangenoises.org•2 days ago

yes, as has been pointed out elsewhere, banning us is not [yet] mandatory, so those complying in advance are clearly signalling it's what they want to do.

ralderton.bsky.social•2 days ago

A great piece, thank you.

I feel utter dread reading what you wrote about ending up in the EHCR. It would be the perfect toxic storm for the conservative right.

fathomdeep.bsky.social•2 days ago

I honestly think this issue was what made the difference in the US elections.

jambodes.bsky.social•2 days ago

The FA: Hold our 🌈 laces.

https://bsky.app/profile/bernietranders.bsky.social/post/3lo423nfxic2f

vidda.bsky.social•2 days ago

Thanks for your work on this Ian. Good piece. The Qu is tho, how to get the govt to grow a spine & revisit the EA vis à vis the GRA? The empathy you ref that’s needed is lacking on front bench, it’s more a willingness to throw an entire community under the bus. For what? Right wing approval…? 🤦‍♀️

vidda.bsky.social•2 days ago

Your conclusion: “What's required is political courage, moral decency and strategic foresight. We better hope there's still some of that left in this government or it won't only be trans people facing the culture war.” It shouldn’t even be trans people! But was there ever any courage in this govt?

katejj.bsky.social•2 days ago

A lot of this mess would sort itself out if the law recognised that "biological sex" has two components, psychological (gender) and morphological (sex). Both are important, and they dissociate (sometimes). It's the attempt to squash it all into one dimension that creates chaos.

doubrelle.bsky.social•2 days ago

indeed! So the Gender critical crew (itself an oxy moron) troll the internet for the latest "strange but true" yarn about bearded men storming woman only places, in order to stoke anxiety about safety ....Meanwhile biological females (trans men) with beards...in accordance with the law....oh!!

seatrout.bsky.social•1 day ago

Except that there's nothing biological about gender. It's a social construct, so it exists in a different way to physical sex. It was the combination of squashing those two together with self-ID which made the supreme court ruling necessary.

katejj.bsky.social•1 day ago

I think this is a common view, but science disagrees - gender is a psychological construct, and has biology at its heart. There's lots of evidence for that now, but the law hasn't caught up with medical science.

seatrout.bsky.social•23 hours ago

I don't understand. If gender is an interpretation of biology you might say it has biology at its conceptual heart. Fair enough. But that doesn't imply any direct influence from biology. Obvs any human thought is in some way physically instantiated but that's not causality.

katejj.bsky.social•18 hours ago

Biology influences via sex hormones shaping brain development during pregnancy - there are "male" and "female" brains; this process is variable though

jonathan-tallon.bsky.social•22 hours ago

One’s sense of personal gender (the psychological) is at least partly biological in nature. Gender identity has a strong genetic component, as shown by twin studies comparing identical to non-identical twins. Diamond (2022).

seatrout.bsky.social•18 hours ago

Sorry: could you give me a more precise reference? Google offers nothing useful for "Diamond(2022)"

jonathan-tallon.bsky.social•15 hours ago

Sorry, out and about currently. Will track it down when I’m back.

jonathan-tallon.bsky.social•11 hours ago

Well, that’s embarrassing. Meant 2013. Not surprised you couldn’t find it…

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15532739.2013.750222

martinneilm.bsky.social•2 days ago

When they say biological sex, what do they mean ?genetic, hormonal or gonadal

timsutton4.bsky.social•2 days ago

Love this. A proper, balanced analysis of the ruling.

philvonoppen.bsky.social•2 days ago

The single mums with flat screen TVs must be very releaved that the solving problems that didn't really exist bandwagon has moved on to trans folk.

charlesarthur.bsky.social•2 days ago

This case which originated with the Scottish government trying to specify that company boards should be mixed sex but declaring that could include trans woman - so, an all-male board. A grassroots crowdfunded group of women objected. No UK government money was spent on any part of this.

philvonoppen.bsky.social•2 days ago

I wonder how many trans women there are on Scottish company boards. It's hard to imagine it being a big issue.

iandunt.bsky.social•2 days ago

Some of the comments we've seen from regulators and ministers are baseless. Some are knowingly false. And some, at best, are misleading by implication. They promote a legal reality which simply does not exist.

misterdac.bsky.social•2 days ago

They are lost.

And it is serious for people who govern.

msalliance.me•2 days ago

I’m trying to imagine how awful it must feel to be trans now and just waiting for the next gloating, spiteful blow.

iandunt.bsky.social•2 days ago

This piece explains the court ruling in full. It's long. But by the end, you'll understand the judgement, the legal repercussions, the political attack, and what will happen next https://iandunt.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about

jasdevsekhon.bsky.social•2 days ago

This was very, very good. Thank you. Will be sharing with friends.

james.claims•2 days ago

Point of note re: “It could do this by amending the Equality Act to make it clear that references to men and women include trans men and women with a gender recognition certificate”

This would still exclude many many trans people. I have a friend waiting 8 months for her application to be looked at

james.claims•2 days ago

Getting one at all requires going through the NHS for gender care, where it could be seven years for a *first* appointment.

Many more years of hoops to achieve one.

james.claims•2 days ago

I believe I will never get one, because I cannot wait 7 years for HRT and the NHS process is degrading. I will be going private. Which as it stands I believe means I cannot achieve a GRC.

james.claims•2 days ago

I don’t have a diagnosis. I’ve been living as James for many years. Though I only changed my name legally four or so years ago, which means I don’t have enough “evidence”. But I have to have surgery to be allowed to be a man, apparently.

Crucially, non-binary people cannot get a GRC at all

patblair.bsky.social•2 days ago

What is WRONG with people over toilets? Have they never been overseas - in some countries you'd be lucky to find any toilet. In E Sussex, a nice little restaurant had only one toilet, for men, women and I guess transgender folk. No problem. It was very clean. I (F) have also used M toilets before.

neilfoxlee.bsky.social•2 days ago

An excellent analysis. This puzzled me, though: "If [extremely male-presenting trans men] are forced to just walk into a female toilet, that may be highly disarming for many of the women inside." 'Disarming' is clearly wrong, but should it be 'disconcerting', 'disturbing' 'discomfiting' or what?

james.claims•2 days ago

I appreciate personally that Ian didn’t suggest I as a trans man, am something that disturbs.

neilfoxlee.bsky.social•2 days ago

Quite. I was assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Ian intended to write a word beginning with 'dis', if only as a way of narrowing the possibilities.

neilfoxlee.bsky.social•2 days ago

A related point. In practice, there's a big difference between the way (most) non-trans people react to: 1) trans people who pass convincingly; 2) those whose physical characteristics make their birth sex appear ambiguous; 3) those whose physical characteristics make their birth sex unmistakeable.

neilfoxlee.bsky.social•2 days ago

2), of course, can also apply to non-trans (aka cis) people.

gerard33.bsky.social•2 days ago

If Ian can see that male-presenting TM are a problem in women’s loos, how can he not see that TW, almost all of whom present as clearly male, aren’t?

oliphaunt.bsky.social•2 days ago

It looks like you're saying "almost all trans women present as clearly male".
If I'm wrong, would you please correct me?
If not: what the heck are you on about?

gerard33.bsky.social•2 days ago

You obvs haven’t met any. Male biology post puberty is almost impossible to disguise

oliphaunt.bsky.social•2 days ago

Thanks for bringing this up; this struck me as well. @iandunt.bsky.social: this to me is the only (slightly) jarring bit in a very well-written piece.

spiritoftherainbow.bsky.social•2 days ago

Thank you for an incredibly helpful detailed explanation of a complex issue. It is a great pity that an issue that cries out for sensitivity and empathy has turned into a strident doctrinal, and now legal, dispute. It is no substitute for common sense and compassion.

cigriff.bsky.social•2 days ago

Or you could read an article written by a KC who understands the law and knows what she's talking about.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/f89ecc90-d81e-4f92-967b-8b6309cbb65f?shareToken=c782d001704651b604270c83e3952c64

thesmall001.bsky.social•2 days ago

This is such a roundabout way to ban the functional absurdity that is urinals

dutchdame.bsky.social•2 days ago

Brilliant piece, thank you for taking the time and trouble to explain the complexities

philwalker.bsky.social•2 days ago

Thank you Ian. Good piece. I hope trans people read this ... and take succour .... and not despair. A more full and empathetic understanding by society, employers, organisations ..... everyone, is required in order that the trans groups feel safe and included in society.

philwalker.bsky.social•2 days ago

Hello @ginagwenffrewi.bsky.social
I read your recent post about the SC ruling unleashing on the trans community.
I am not sure it is quite right to blame the SC judiciary.
My answer above was to a piece by @iandunt.bsky.social who has waited a week or two and written a long analysis. Please read.

ginagwenffrewi.bsky.social•2 days ago

A judiciary that decided on trans people's legal legitimacy and yet, which stops trans people from contributing to that decision (but is happy to accept contributions from anti-trans campaign organisations), is a judiciary unworthy of the name.

philwalker.bsky.social•2 days ago

I understand. I am unaware of who could contribute.
Dunt explains in his article what they(SC) were asked to decide on.
It is the fault of politicians (+society) that we have this terrible muddle.
I read your piece on toilet angst - enlightening.
I wish you all legit acceptance to live as you are.

topofthefield.bsky.social•2 days ago

Thank you! Very good.

liberalukgeek.bsky.social•2 days ago

OMG I have been desperate for something to explain the ruling in terms that I, whilst sitting on the Clapham Omnibus, can understand. Thank-you.

moiness.bsky.social•2 days ago

Thanks for this.

nigelburns.bsky.social•2 days ago

This is an outstanding summary of a complex and densely written case. I agree that the answer lies in parliament, but no politician is going to go anywhere near something surrounded by so much toxicity. I think that making a GRC a passport to equality under the EA is too problematical/simplistic.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply