To wonder why an MP is lying about womens bathrooms?

Thank you Tiphaine.

Oh I didn’t see the Ops apology to you

Oh no. They never apologised for anything. Their OP's dramatic misrepresentation, the language used, the emotional manipulative tactics, any of it. They were completely soaked in their own brilliance and righteousness it seemed. I am sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Your posts are always informative and eloquent Helleofabore. Your patience is frankly incredible!

Apologise even

I enjoyed their continuing typos; I found they added piquancy.

While I certainly try to live up to my name with my lengthy posts! I often look back and feel shame at my typos!!!

I know. I made that post while very tired and not thinking. It is also a word I have used many times. However, I find sometimes using a small screen means sometimes I can't be arsed to go and check myself.

But the point about that OP making that comment was also hilarious because they had chipped me for having a stray 's' in a post previously as well.

I did not return the favour to correct their typos each time they made them though, because I also saw them doing it because they seemed to not be able to defend their OP and many subsequent posts with any coherence. It was a puerile move as a result of frustration, I shouldn't wonder.

I do thank you and the others though who did confirm my usage, though. When I am suffering menopausal exhaustion my brain does fuzz somewhat.

noun
1.
an exemption from or relaxation of a rule or law.
"countries assuming a derogation from EC law"

the perception or treatment of someone or something as being of little worth.
"the derogation of women"

@Helleofabore
You used the word in the correct context. It’s the Op whose command of the English language - among other things - is lacking.

Cailleach1

Well Cailleach, if I remember correctly there was a certain attempt to obfuscate that. I remember particularly because I was one of the posters that brought up just how the male body had the benefit to produce louder and deeper voices and how that could be sustained longer and is easier to listen to. Because, I have experience delivering day long lectures and by the end of the day in a large room that is not designed around accoustics, I am squeaking.

The biological differences were attempted to be glossed over by some posters and made out to be a different meaning of 'power'. Which they also really failed to defend at the time too.

Yet, it appears that women (the ones who aren't picking or choosing anything but recognise our natural and biological selves) can't even be allowed to opt for safety, privacy or dignity; even in vulnerable situations.

I started to lose the will to live at about page 18 and have only skimmed from about page 10 so sorry if this repeats something.

The real issue, for me, with all these signs is that they are provocative. On purpose? maybe. So if a sign has in nice big friendly letters: Men's toilet ->, Gender neutral toilet -> and then in smaller harder to read letters underneath "there are women't toilets somewhere else") what is the reason? Do they want to "erase women"? Do they want to annoy women? are they trying to trick people into tweeting about women's erasure so they can come back and say (in the words of pp quoting Douglas Adams) "silly! they're down there behind the beware of the leopard" sign.

When i need the toilet, i need the toilet. Now. I'm not a shy retiring violet and on occasion when the alternative is to pee my pants or worse, i have merely barged into the nearest toilet with no queue (usually men's) shouting as i come in that it's an emergency, I'm not looking but i must go now!" and i have had precisely zero complaints about that in the 50 years or so i've been doing it.

So I'm not averse to using the men's loo, and i am also not averse to a GN loo either. But some people are. It is beyond nasty to hide the signage or otherwise obfuscate (for men or women or people who need accessible facilities) where these facilities are.

I use a pub not far from where i live which has a Weatherspoons approach to the ladies - it is down some stairs, then up half a flight of stairs and along a corridor and there are only 2 cubicles. The men's is just behind the bar and has 3 cubicles and 3 urinals. I'm pretty sure that's not actually legal since my understanding is that access to toilets should give parity to the number of facilites that can be used by male sexed and female sexed people. (that could be wishful thinking). Anyway - rather helpfully, above the sign for the men's in equally large letters is a big sign with a diagram of how to get to the women's. Which is more helpful than the signage i saw in the Barbican tweet or that Belfast pub.

“ I think you should learn what derogation means.

I suspect you meant denigration?”

@TeaKlaxon
How embarrassing for you. Have you looked up the meaning of derogation since you posted this?

Exactly as we are entitled to under the EA201o - the real version rather than the heavily mucked about version RMW and Starmer et al seem to have read!

That's very disappointing for a pair of legal figures who have a reputation (albeit for different reasons) and are high profile in this area.

Yes it is.

It should be noted that we did not get that answer I asked for. We never do.

At least the thread stands as a great example of the twists and manipulative techniques used. And to be fair, I believe that the OP understands very well those tactics and simply believes this cause they are very heavily invested in is the most righteous at the moment. For whatever reason motivates them.

Unfortunately for them, our motivations are also very strong and personal.

Well this thread is a good example of a poor attempt to compare women's safety concerns with right wing politics isn't it?

Misogyny 101.

You don’t keep up with Posie Parker’s antics, then?

Yep. And if she did 'police' entrry to a female space we can all be sure it was a man trying to gain entry. Something any of us would also 'police' - aka telling thenm to fuck off out of it!

Exactly as we are entitled to under the EA201o - the real version rather than the heavily mucked about version RMW and Starmer et al seem to have read!

You are right elPollo. There is a reason that Kellie-Jay gets brought up by extreme trans activists. Because she points out glaring holes in the rhetoric.

You don’t keep up with Posie Parker’s antics, then?

Good reminder. For anyone new to this Posie Parker aka Kellie-Jay Keen has been at the vanguard of womens rights campaigning.

She has been at the forefront of the push to reclaim our language and have clear discussions on what is happening. She makes excellent videos summarising and explaining the issues.

She was responsible for the Adult Human Female billboard that got removed for being offensive and now runs Standing For Women.

No Franca. But look. Robin came!!!!

We are all waiting for Robin to answer a policing question. Being who they are of course, and having written a law book about all this. They have awfully good insight.

So this one is a cinch!

When a mixed sex toilet provision is made and a clearly signed ‘female single sex toilet’ is available for the females, whether a transitioned male would disrespect the needs of those females by entering into that toilet.?

And if not, what would we be policing if all toilets are configured in such a way?

Where did we get to? Did anyone confirm that we're removing sex and religion from the protected chatactistics?

I’d suggest it would take a particular type of person to answer my question with honesty. I tried to make it as clear as possible with no wiggle room (as we know we have to do all the time).

I shall wait and see who answers it and how.

I can take a punt as to who won’t answer it though.

It takes a particular kind of man to ignore a women's sign because there is no-one policing them, so they feel entitled to go in.

These men can say that they feel like a woman, but there is no one way of feeling like a woman. It is possible to feel superior though, as shown by men who happily enter women's spaces.