Apart from what you point out, this has other issues:
"It is against the law in the UK for anyone to be discriminated against because of their gender, sexuality, disability or race. This is because of The Equality Act 2010. "
They miss out other protected characteristics (eg religion or belief) and it is sometimes lawful to discriminate - there are circumstances built in to the Equality Act that permits discrimination under certain conditions. Statements like these might make people think girls and women can't exclude males from some spaces and services for fear of breaking the law when it can be perfectly legal to do so.
Quite right, Alan. If you exclude a trans-woman from a female-only space, you're not discriminating on the basis of gender identity at all, because you exclude all men - those with and those without a female gender identity - just the same.
Thanks for standing against this propaganda which is actively confusing vulnerable people and is especially sinister when you consider that so many being captured by the cult have autism and mental health needs.
"The government in Scotland have just tried to change their laws to make it easier for transgender people to change gender, but the UK government blocked the new law so they can’t change it." So biased!
Just saying what 66% of the Scottish public said during the consultation and debates in the house. There is an adequate law in place. It only needed tweaked not rewritten.
If this is how you write when under pressure, what you produce at other times must be dynamite! Wonderful response - clear, concise and, above all, accurate. Thank you for being one of us.
I used to work for this organisation. A point I keep banging on about is how this new fangled trans inclusive language is so difficult to translate to an easy read format leaving people with learning difficulties even more excluded.
For example how would you make "person with a uterus" easy to understand? There's a two syllable word that already covers that but is not inclusive enough for some people
I was similarly annoyed by my children's youth choir organisation, which recently advertised their new 'Women's Conducting Fellowship'. They felt women were under represented in the field of choir conducting and so were offering this new training post. Great. Until you read the description which states that it's 'open to women and anyone who identifies as a woman'. So...open to anyone then!
Like you I took to my keyboard and complained, but received a reply stating that 'gender reassignment is one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 so we are beholden to support musicians who identify as women and include them in this opportunity'. This sounded like bollocks to me, but I didn't have enough confidence in my legal knowledge to refute this, so I let it go. It still bugs me, though, knowing that a female may well miss out on a great opportunity.
The organisers have misunderstood the law. They should have had two separate new "Conducting Fellowships" for the two Protected Characteristics: (1) one for women (50% of population but vastly under-represented in the world of conducting) and (2) one for people with the PC of "gender reassignment" (there are 6959 people in UK with a GRC, ie. 0.01% of the population - arguably NOT under-represented). The question that they should have asked themselves was whether offering a fellowship only to natal women - excluding TIMs (Trans-identified males) - would be "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim", the advancement of a natal female conductor in her career. I would argue that this is PRECISELY the kind of discrimination which IS legitimate in these circumstances.
Please copy my analysis above and paste into any similar arguments in future. This is what we need to bang on and on and on about.
Sorry. I should have made clear. The first fellowship is for the PC of "sex", of course: women are the under-represented sex in the population of conductors.
Thanks for this. I will try replying in this vein.
Trouble is despite them using the phrase 'beholden' I suspect they WANT to go down this route - is there any argument that you can't/must not bung two underrepresented characteristics in together like this? Or can an organisation argue that they are using a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim in trying to advance BOTH protected characteristics?
Also is their definition of being open to 'anyone who identifies as a woman' even covered under the Equality Act? It says no discrimination on the grounds of 'gender reassignment' - has anyone even defined this. Surely you should need an op or at least a GRC to be considered 'reassigned' and protected by the Equality Act....but maybe not, the whole charade is so bonkers after all.
I did feel like suggesting putting myself forward as a woman who would like to identify as a conductor but felt I shouldn't make it light hearted! It would make about as much sense as their argument though....
Of course the Equality and Human Rights Commission SHOULD publish a "decision tree" about how to approach and carry out an analysis of the competing PCs. God, this is the most stupid subject.... but vital for civilization because Women's and girls' interests are vital!
Please use the language and analysis of the Equality Act. This is the law to be used to advance the PC of "sex", which is most commonly used to advance the female sex.
So the transgender goon squad moves its tendrils towards the disabled.
As one who works with the disabled, and also the parent of a disabled child, I find this utterly vomitable. And I have been through some unbelievably crass and uncomprehending media campaigns allegedly intended to aid this segment by e.g. promoting a barrage of acronyms representing groups who were supposed to help and which even the non-disabled would have trouble figuring out. After a while I came to the suspicion that none of the labyrinthine “easy read” explanations was intended to explain anything at all and was only there to sow confusion whilst supplying employment to people who were even less socially adept than the ones they were supposed to be helping.
But that was relatively harmless do-goodery. Now it’s the trans-mafia sinking their festering claws into the most vulnerable, twisting minds that are already struggling with heaps of nonsense, and terrorising the lonely by implanting totally artificial “discoveries” which are sheer Orwellian distortion.
I don’t believe that any of these mind poisoners are naïvely “attempting to help”. They are fully aware of the chaos and fear they are spreading.
It's unbelievable that this sort of misleading nonsense is being pushed, especially to vulnerable people. Well done Jimmy. We have to challenge this every time we spot it.
Would you believe the British Association of Social Workers is still indirectly signposting children in care to Mermaids for example?
And it is NOT clear that the Tavistock has closed or will soon close. The newly re-vamped website makes no mention of imminent closure. What IS going on??
I get the impression Prof Cass is back pedalling on her interim recommendations. I think we're going to get a nasty surprise when the full report comes out.
(1) I fear that you may be right. Barry Wall, "the EDI jester" and "Head Warrior" (@HeadWarriorTWM on Twitter) and on YouTube, was posting about this a few weeks ago. I forget what event or news he was discussing.
(2) I was listening to "The World at One" with Sarah Montague today and she interviewed some pupils in year 11 (15-16 year olds) about their PHSE education. The only controversial topic she broached was "strangling during sex". "Trans" was much, much too hot to touch, and there was NO mention at all. These teenagers seemed to be fairly firm on the subject of strangling ("NO") and sensitive to the idea that sometimes "consent is obtained under duress" - ie. this is no consent at all.
He is talking about the Cass review's response to NHSE's consultation on the draft interim service specification for specialist GD services for children and young people. Cass talks about "2 sides" and seems to be backpeddling: https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/
Well I might be wrong ( highly probable ) but from my understanding the Tavistock is ‘closing’ but not really , it’s just getting filtered out into smaller clinics
I’ve said that wrong , as I believe the Tavistock facility is closing ( getting shut down) but it’s ethos is just being filtered down to smaller facilities across the country
Emma, on 19 February the Times reported ( 'Tavistock children still referred for blockers') that children were still being take off the waiting list and being given blockers. Anyone got a more recent update?
Excellent response. How disgraceful though that people who are already vulnerable are being sent misleading information, clearly influenced by a particular ideology.
Fuckin'A Jimmythefig! Amazing. This is one I'll copy and keep for those times I can't bring myself to have the argument with someone ill informed yet so certain they're right. Thank you.
Excellent!
Apart from what you point out, this has other issues:
"It is against the law in the UK for anyone to be discriminated against because of their gender, sexuality, disability or race. This is because of The Equality Act 2010. "
They miss out other protected characteristics (eg religion or belief) and it is sometimes lawful to discriminate - there are circumstances built in to the Equality Act that permits discrimination under certain conditions. Statements like these might make people think girls and women can't exclude males from some spaces and services for fear of breaking the law when it can be perfectly legal to do so.
Quite right, Alan. If you exclude a trans-woman from a female-only space, you're not discriminating on the basis of gender identity at all, because you exclude all men - those with and those without a female gender identity - just the same.
What a brilliantly written response. Thank you Jimmy! I will be keeping a copy! This kind of propaganda is too widespread.
Thanks for standing against this propaganda which is actively confusing vulnerable people and is especially sinister when you consider that so many being captured by the cult have autism and mental health needs.
"The government in Scotland have just tried to change their laws to make it easier for transgender people to change gender, but the UK government blocked the new law so they can’t change it." So biased!
Just saying what 66% of the Scottish public said during the consultation and debates in the house. There is an adequate law in place. It only needed tweaked not rewritten.
If this is how you write when under pressure, what you produce at other times must be dynamite! Wonderful response - clear, concise and, above all, accurate. Thank you for being one of us.
I used to work for this organisation. A point I keep banging on about is how this new fangled trans inclusive language is so difficult to translate to an easy read format leaving people with learning difficulties even more excluded.
For example how would you make "person with a uterus" easy to understand? There's a two syllable word that already covers that but is not inclusive enough for some people
I was similarly annoyed by my children's youth choir organisation, which recently advertised their new 'Women's Conducting Fellowship'. They felt women were under represented in the field of choir conducting and so were offering this new training post. Great. Until you read the description which states that it's 'open to women and anyone who identifies as a woman'. So...open to anyone then!
Like you I took to my keyboard and complained, but received a reply stating that 'gender reassignment is one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 so we are beholden to support musicians who identify as women and include them in this opportunity'. This sounded like bollocks to me, but I didn't have enough confidence in my legal knowledge to refute this, so I let it go. It still bugs me, though, knowing that a female may well miss out on a great opportunity.
The organisers have misunderstood the law. They should have had two separate new "Conducting Fellowships" for the two Protected Characteristics: (1) one for women (50% of population but vastly under-represented in the world of conducting) and (2) one for people with the PC of "gender reassignment" (there are 6959 people in UK with a GRC, ie. 0.01% of the population - arguably NOT under-represented). The question that they should have asked themselves was whether offering a fellowship only to natal women - excluding TIMs (Trans-identified males) - would be "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim", the advancement of a natal female conductor in her career. I would argue that this is PRECISELY the kind of discrimination which IS legitimate in these circumstances.
Please copy my analysis above and paste into any similar arguments in future. This is what we need to bang on and on and on about.
Sorry. I should have made clear. The first fellowship is for the PC of "sex", of course: women are the under-represented sex in the population of conductors.
Thanks for this. I will try replying in this vein.
Trouble is despite them using the phrase 'beholden' I suspect they WANT to go down this route - is there any argument that you can't/must not bung two underrepresented characteristics in together like this? Or can an organisation argue that they are using a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim in trying to advance BOTH protected characteristics?
Also is their definition of being open to 'anyone who identifies as a woman' even covered under the Equality Act? It says no discrimination on the grounds of 'gender reassignment' - has anyone even defined this. Surely you should need an op or at least a GRC to be considered 'reassigned' and protected by the Equality Act....but maybe not, the whole charade is so bonkers after all.
I did feel like suggesting putting myself forward as a woman who would like to identify as a conductor but felt I shouldn't make it light hearted! It would make about as much sense as their argument though....
Please contact Naomi Cunningham, a barrister specialising in Employment and discrimination cases, or Akua Reindorf KC. Their profiles are easily available on the internet. Naomi is one of the directors of Sex-Matters.org. There is also the Authentic Equity Alliance, founded by Ann Sinnott, an ex-Councillor on Cambridge City Council who resigned over the Council's policy on toilets and changing rooms (https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/cambridge-city-councillor-ann-sinnott-quits-over-rules-allowing-transgender-women-to-use-female-toilets-9051029/)
Of course the Equality and Human Rights Commission SHOULD publish a "decision tree" about how to approach and carry out an analysis of the competing PCs. God, this is the most stupid subject.... but vital for civilization because Women's and girls' interests are vital!
Yes, it’s all bollocks.
Please use the language and analysis of the Equality Act. This is the law to be used to advance the PC of "sex", which is most commonly used to advance the female sex.
as stated in the comments above it is perfectly lawful to exclude men (inc trans identifying men) from a role that is for a woman
So the transgender goon squad moves its tendrils towards the disabled.
As one who works with the disabled, and also the parent of a disabled child, I find this utterly vomitable. And I have been through some unbelievably crass and uncomprehending media campaigns allegedly intended to aid this segment by e.g. promoting a barrage of acronyms representing groups who were supposed to help and which even the non-disabled would have trouble figuring out. After a while I came to the suspicion that none of the labyrinthine “easy read” explanations was intended to explain anything at all and was only there to sow confusion whilst supplying employment to people who were even less socially adept than the ones they were supposed to be helping.
But that was relatively harmless do-goodery. Now it’s the trans-mafia sinking their festering claws into the most vulnerable, twisting minds that are already struggling with heaps of nonsense, and terrorising the lonely by implanting totally artificial “discoveries” which are sheer Orwellian distortion.
I don’t believe that any of these mind poisoners are naïvely “attempting to help”. They are fully aware of the chaos and fear they are spreading.
It's unbelievable that this sort of misleading nonsense is being pushed, especially to vulnerable people. Well done Jimmy. We have to challenge this every time we spot it.
Would you believe the British Association of Social Workers is still indirectly signposting children in care to Mermaids for example?
And it is NOT clear that the Tavistock has closed or will soon close. The newly re-vamped website makes no mention of imminent closure. What IS going on??
I get the impression Prof Cass is back pedalling on her interim recommendations. I think we're going to get a nasty surprise when the full report comes out.
(1) I fear that you may be right. Barry Wall, "the EDI jester" and "Head Warrior" (@HeadWarriorTWM on Twitter) and on YouTube, was posting about this a few weeks ago. I forget what event or news he was discussing.
(2) I was listening to "The World at One" with Sarah Montague today and she interviewed some pupils in year 11 (15-16 year olds) about their PHSE education. The only controversial topic she broached was "strangling during sex". "Trans" was much, much too hot to touch, and there was NO mention at all. These teenagers seemed to be fairly firm on the subject of strangling ("NO") and sensitive to the idea that sometimes "consent is obtained under duress" - ie. this is no consent at all.
Discussing "strangling during sex" with 15-16 year olds. My god. The pornofication of society. I am getting too old for this world.
1. I'm behind on my viewing - I have several of Barry's videos to watch.
2. Steps in the right direction, but still work to do. I'll try to find the session online. Thank you!
This is the link to Barry's video on 5th Dec 2022: https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=qbOa74__zxg
He is talking about the Cass review's response to NHSE's consultation on the draft interim service specification for specialist GD services for children and young people. Cass talks about "2 sides" and seems to be backpeddling: https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/
Now all has gone quiet.
Deeply worrying.
Thank you. Yes, the silence is deafening.
Well I might be wrong ( highly probable ) but from my understanding the Tavistock is ‘closing’ but not really , it’s just getting filtered out into smaller clinics
I may have made this up !
Blame the drugs
I’ve said that wrong , as I believe the Tavistock facility is closing ( getting shut down) but it’s ethos is just being filtered down to smaller facilities across the country
That was the recommendation in the interim Cass report, certainly.
Still open and medicalising was the last I heard!!
Maybe they’re dealing with the children they had already been medicating before the decision to close was made?
Emma, on 19 February the Times reported ( 'Tavistock children still referred for blockers') that children were still being take off the waiting list and being given blockers. Anyone got a more recent update?
Dusty
Right. So my hopeful suggestion is wrong. Lately, I feel like we’re being lied to a lot.
It really needs to be shut down pronto. Outrageous that it is still operating at all.
Excellent!
Great response. It's a lot more polite than the one that I would have written!
Very good, very considered response. Thank you!
Well done, Jimmy--- & Graham --- for sharing it.
Excellent response. How disgraceful though that people who are already vulnerable are being sent misleading information, clearly influenced by a particular ideology.
Biased,inaccurate and deliberately misleading. How can this help any young person trying to make sense of the world?
Well done, JimmyTheFig. Excellent response.
Fuckin'A Jimmythefig! Amazing. This is one I'll copy and keep for those times I can't bring myself to have the argument with someone ill informed yet so certain they're right. Thank you.