EA petition EHRC are in favour of reviewing the definition of sex

Does that mean there will have to be a parliamentary debate now? I kind of hope so as I assume that would force Starmer to give his MPs some kind of direction, even if it's just to allow a free vote. It could show us just how much control he has over his own party, which will be very helpful in deciding where my general election vote goes.

Which is exactly where it conflicts with women's rights, yes.

Freedom for men to access female single sex spaces is incompatible with female people having accessible female single sex spaces. It's one or the other.

1% of the population or 52%.

The counter petition has got to 100,000 signatures:

twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1644264513250656258?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I wonder if they realise what this says in that petition? Namely, that they're riding a coach and horses through the law undermining men and women as distinct sex classes, thereby proving the need to clarify the EQA. But also they're saying they're protected under "sex". Which doesn't weaken the case for clarity around that definition. Bizarre wording:

"Currently, the Act protects trans people from discrimination on the basis of both sex and “gender reassignment”, regardless of whether they have undergone medical transition or hold a Gender Recognition Certificate. It can allow trans people to access single-sex spaces such as DV shelters, bathrooms and hospital wards."

Excellent article by Michael Foran.

Inevitable that the intellectually challenged TRAs would go for him.

Article today by Michael Foran, who the TRAs were just yesterday trying to get sacked:

thecritic.co.uk/ministers-must-grasp-the-nettle-on-equality-law/

"There is no way to avoid grasping this nettle. The law needs definitions if it is to work."

The trying to get him sacked part, which isn't working:

twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1644283631056171010?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

twitter.com/proftomkins/status/1644053503524982802?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

twitter.com/robertcraig3/status/1644071733333311490?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

It shouldn’t be ignored. The way that statement is shown in quote marks will mean thousands of people take it as being true.

Those same people who take this as fact may well never read the actual letter she wrote.

Now I'm on the right thread...this screenshotted post from KM is quite wrongheaded and unhelpful. Perhaps the EHRC/Falkner will take Action, or just ignore it:

twitter.com/famedtrust/status/1644089225128574977?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Oh, sit-ons only these days for me at sea because of similar issues — but yes, everything is designed for men.

I'm currently looking for a new van. I've done my back in on the old one, having to reach right over and down to put on the handbrake. They're designed for orang-utans with massive long arms.

To be fair I nearly drowned once as the sea canoe I was in didn't let me exit after capsizing as my hips were too big and at the ‘wrong angle’ apparently. I was a size 10/12 but do have big hips. Funny how I was the design fault.

I've just applied for this year's canoeing licence and they want my gender. I'm just paddling up and down the river in a kayak.

In German the word 'Geschlecht' (gender) continues to be used to define whether someone or something is male or female

Well, on all official forms it asks what your gender is - male or female!

No mention of 'sex'

Maya's link got me thinking about the way forward. I wondered if Iain Anderson had ever taken up any offers after his "big tent" chatter. I can't see any but this is the thing I remembered:

twitter.com/mensnetwork1/status/1587903432408666117?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Were there signs that Stonewall would speak to groups like GMN, LGBA, Sex Matters and so on? My searches may have been poor so thought I'd see if anyone else ever saw anything.

No, it denotes masculine or feminine attributes - not sex.

...just like 'gender reveals'

Because this nonsene 'gender' business is largely a U.S invention.

And campaign for third gender neutral spaces.

Helen Belcher: asking the EHRC: "how I, as a transwoman, would be able to live any form of public life if I was effectively barred from women's spaces?"

As a biological male she can use the men's spaces, can't she?

Helen Belcher: asking the EHRC: "how I, as a transwoman, would be able to live any form of public life if I was effectively barred from women's spaces?"

The issue being that many female people are now effectively barred from women's spaces by male people such as Helen, and Helen has had no problem with that whatsoever.

And that female people constitute half the population and have rights too.

And as a former director perhaps things are now clearer on why advice from the EHRC in previous years has been confused and unable to recognise female people's rights as equal to male people with TQ+ identities.

That’s an eye-opening read Rex. Thanks for posting the link.

WeeBisom · Today 11:05
Is it devastating because they can no longer muddy the waters and take female only spaces away from us ?

Yes.

Maya has collected some of the hyperbole. And the receipts:

www.forstater.com/time-for-civil-debate-yet/

Yes, it's like the 'self-ID has nothing to do with women' argument. How can it be both?

Absolutely. And it's happened - it seems - all across the western world. It's not isolated to little old "TERF island". Not by a long shot. It's an internationally coordinated attack on women and children.

Sooner or later, one country has to stand up and say no, enough is enough. Let that country be ours.