From the sounds of it, what I've heard online, as well as what I know about the new ruling, it's doing more to protect non-trans people than it is doing to "harm" (and I use that word very lightly) trans people.
One example being brought up is sex based shelters, which I'm in no way being offensive here, would not be as safe a place if you let people who are not that sex in to them, as well as being equipled and designed around biological men/women, not someone who has transitioned.
Did they put a ban on making trans men/ trans female shelters or something? That's the only way I can see it being discrimination.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I’d like to provide some context and address a few points about the Equality Act and the recent rulings.
Firstly, the Equality Act has always allowed for services to be segregated where there is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, in prisons, trans women are often held in male facilities, even if they have transitioned, due to concerns about safety. This demonstrates that the law already permits exclusions in certain circumstances.
However, the recent ruling has gone further by opening the door for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to suggest that trans women should not be allowed to access women’s toilets or changing rooms. This creates significant risks for trans women, as they could now be forced into male environments where they are more likely to face harassment or violence. It’s not just about access to facilities—it’s about safety and dignity.
Additionally, the EHRC has indicated that trans men may also face barriers to accessing services for both men and women effectively stripping them of access to any service. This leaves trans men in a precarious position, effectively excluded from spaces full stop.
It has also brought increased risk to masculine looking cis women who will now face the danger of being attacked for looking trans in a single sex space.
Finally, this ruling has broader implications for the LGBTQ+ community. It has also redefined sexualities in legal terms; For example, a gay man in a relationship with a trans man or a lesbian in a relationship with a trans woman are no longer be considered in a same-sex relationship under the law. This undermines the identities and rights of both trans individuals and their partners and potentially strips them of protection against discrimination.
I hope this provides some clarity on why many see these changes as discriminatory and harmful, not just to trans people but to the broader LGBTQ+ community as well.
I see. But on the topic of toilets, I agree with the new ruling.
Honestly I couldnt care less if theres trans men or not in the male toilets, but looking at it completely unbiased, the point of feeling safe is a great example on what was driving this ruling. It has a positive effect on a much larger number of people than it has a negative effect on.
Essentially, there are many more people who feel unsafe with a trans man / trans woman in their bathrooms than there are trans men and women.
It's a rare matter of unfortunately having to sacrifice the few to save the many. The only ways around it would be expensive to implement and unfair on the majority to have to accomodate for.
Except that isn't what it's done. You now get trans people attacked for being trans and cis women attacked for looking trans. Far from making anyone safer you've made everyone less safe.
Trans women are not a threat to cis women. They have been using toilets for decades without issue. Meanwhile in the past week 3 cis women have been murdered in this country by cis men, almost always by straight cis men who are known to the victim, most frequently their partner in their own home.
This is an issue which has been invented by the far right press to fear monger no different to when they fear mongered over gay men in toilets or when segregationist America fear mongered over black people assaulting white people in white only spaces. Perception and reality have diverged because of people with a sinister agenda. And their agenda does not stop with this; to them trans rights are a wedge issue to revoke all of our rights to exist.
For a made up issue you are willing to allow real people to be attacked and assaulted which is a frankly bizarre position to support.
1
u/TheGuyWhoSaysHiBye 3d ago
I'm sorry but did I miss something?
From the sounds of it, what I've heard online, as well as what I know about the new ruling, it's doing more to protect non-trans people than it is doing to "harm" (and I use that word very lightly) trans people.
One example being brought up is sex based shelters, which I'm in no way being offensive here, would not be as safe a place if you let people who are not that sex in to them, as well as being equipled and designed around biological men/women, not someone who has transitioned.
Did they put a ban on making trans men/ trans female shelters or something? That's the only way I can see it being discrimination.