Two little words
Undefined buzzwords displace thought.
“But ultimately, it’s important to remember that under the Equality Act 2010, all organizations have a responsibility to make sure trans people are included at work and don’t face discrimination.”
Yes but what are you meaning by “included at work”? What are you meaning by “face discrimination”?
We’re supposed to understand those two items in the familiar generic way, but that’s not what he means by them at all. He means a special new meaning of “included” and “discrimination.”
The familiar generic way is just that inclusion means not being shunned or bullied for no good reason, and discrimination means not being treated as weird or dangerous for no good reason. Inclusion does not mean “included among the women when you’re not a woman” and discrimination does not mean “not included among the women because you’re not a woman.”
The unspoken but crucial meanings this sly dude is using are carefully veiled and implicit and not spelled out, because if they were spelled out it would be obvious how grotesque and unjust they are.
This trick is performed absolutely everywhere, and needs to be called out absolutely everywhere.
“…So if somebody says they are a miss or a mrs, even though they might sound like what you think is a man, it’s important to respect the fact that they’ve told you that they are in fact female.”
Example #186135483 of trans people conflating sex-specific words with feminine / masculine. Trans women are by definition male.
Women who resist the male intrusion into female spaces are being shunned and bullied for no good reason. This unjust exclusion is enforced on women for simply recognizing and stating that men are not women.
Men who insist on violating women’s boundaries are being considered weird or dangerous for very good reason. Women are supposed to lower their guard and go against basic safeguarding practices to assuage the feelings of creepy men.
A man can never “in fact” be female. There is no reason we have to “respect” the claim of a man who says he is, and to expect or demand that we accept this lie is disrespectful, rude, and offensive.
Toilet facilities are designed around the needs of biology, not personality. They are segregated by sex, not magic gender essence. To be asked to use the facilities appropriate to your sex is not discriminatory or unreasonable. It is not rude or disrespectful. To demand the right to use women’s washrooms and change rooms when you are a man is rude and disrespectful, and a red flag for safeguarding. Humans can’t change sex, “gender identity” notwithstanding. No males in female spaces. It’s a simple rule. Follow it.
The way it was explained to me, the equality act means, broadly speaking, ‘person with x characteristic should not be treated differently from person without x characteristic (without very good reason)’. So if ‘gender reassignment’ is a characteristic covered by the equality act, a man (or woman) with a ‘gender reassignment’ characteristic should not be treated differently from a man (or woman) without a ‘gender reassignment’ characteristic.
…without very good reason, but of course there is very good reason.
The point is, if a man has a ‘gender reassignment’ characteristic, the equality act states that he shouldn’t be treated any differently than a man without that characteristic. It doesn’t require him to be treated like a woman.
I very much agree. The issue is to have such a man be properly regarded as a man with a ‘gender reassignment’ characteristic, rather than a woman with a ‘gender reassignment’ characteristic; authorities that enforce the act might have a creative interpretation of the words ‘man’ and ‘woman.’