BBC2 Politics Live today - Samantha Niblett MP says the new EHRC guidance won’t keep anyone safe

Is anywhere safe from this patronising dildo wielding nutcase ?

I don’t suppose you could post a screenshot could you Justme? Apparently she limits the people who can view this and I’m not in the inner circle

Just seen the clip where she performatively bemoans no trans in the room, and says painfully ironically "...unless one of you is trans?..." to the other two women guests, who had that look where someone ostensibly intelligent and aged over 7 has said something <very very> stupid live to the nation.
The way I see it is Niblett being rolled out for the trans side is very very good news indeed. It means the ideology and it's stranglehold on the culture is weakening fast, because the current gatekeepers and media cheerleaders are at the bargain basement level of this joke of a politician.
We're at the vapours phase of this madness.
She was a joke with her "summer of sex" comments, she's an embarrassment now.

She did inadvertently confirm that she has not way of knowing anyone else's gender, so it's not a helpful way to categorise people.

Maybe everyone there was trans?! How would she know without teating everyone's chromosomes?! Or however that particular male rights argument goes...

No need to pretend to be anything if facilities are 'inclusive' because nobody's right to use the service can be challenged.

If she represents the calibre of MPs currently in parliament then it shows why we're in such a mess. Zero critical thinking, endless narcissistic self promotion, completely uncaring about child safeguarding and women's rights while jumping on any available bandwagon.

Although she provides the electorate with a good laugh, she's actually deeply depressing

Samantha Niblett clearly never had the benefit of any lesssons in critical thinking. Embarrassing!

Single sex facilities are a safeguarding measure. They offer no guarantee, but they at least attempt to address the issue and provide a level of protection against known dangers.

I saw that. The basis of her argument was that cis men might pretend to be trans in order to access female spaces…

Apparently she views this as a significant risk that men might pretend to be trans men. But pretending to be trans women in order to do the exact same thing (access female spaces) would presumably be unthinkable to her.

Can I just say how utterly brilliant this is. Thank you Pingponghavoc.

"Samantha Niblett had a pained expression the whole time. She said its now easier for men to get into womens spaces because they can claim to be TM.

That confused the panel. They've obviously seen The Odyssey."

Single sex exemptions do enable safer design of public/private facilities, but I doubt that Niblett has considered this.

I don’t think any of the legislation allowing single sex exemptions for services asks people to assess safety. Extract below:

27(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)The condition is that—
(a)the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)The condition is that—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)a hospital, or
(b)another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)The condition is that—
(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

She's really doing her best to give Stella Creasy some real competition.
Getting to the point where Nadia Whittome looks like the adult in the room, lol.

I wonder what she thinks the difference betwen men and women is.

Niblett is a performative half-wit. She is an embarrassment to politics. She’s best ignored.

She is incrediblly dumb and I don't say that about people normally. She is MP for South Derbyshire and WRN Derbyshire have written about her and her ridiculous sex campaign. She even tried to say that it would reduce VAWG. Yes, reducing the shame and guilt around sex would reduce VAWG. Yet she is partnered with Cindy Galop who makes pornography - which is VAWG.

Is she the one who likes talking about sex but not when it really matters?

I am so incredibly blinkered I cannot follow societal rules.
Following the rules would mean thinking for myself.
The solution is to ban the rules.

She'll be free to perform her saviour behaviours in the mixed sex/gender neutral areas.

Doesn't she realise the world has moved on. It doesn't matter whether she gets confused over the sex of people in the changing room, while the rest of us are pretty confident with our eyesight - this is the law so whingeing about it isn't going to change a thing.