The Law Is the Law. So Why Is Everyone Choosing Which Bits to Obey?

I think it’s going to be funny when these trans women get their privileges to invade women’s spaces as much as they want, and the spaces just end up being full of men. Not a woman in sight. We’ll use our own toilets and find our own spaces. And if you think that trans-women should just keep invading every space we make? Well… that’s very colonial, to say the least.
Ah, the urge of man to spread his seed and dominate every corner of the earth.

And yeah, maybe that won’t happen for a while, plenty of women support trans women right now. But when these cis women realize the implications of what they’ve supported, and how actually they’ve willingly opened up their space to ALL genders, including men, they’ll start rethinking their kindness.

When men can go wherever women are, without any consent or repercussions, these bleeding hearts will realize what they’ve done, and they’ll have to hide like the rest of us. Does that make you happy?
Do you feel good?

Women in our past fought for sex-segregated spaces for a reason.

What "new" next?
New anorexics?
New autists?
New dyslexics?
New left handers?
How about new AGPs?
When it comes to girls who historically never existed as any tangible group in claiming they were boys, maybe they're just New victims?

I agree.
The violent methods employed by the Suffrage movement were a last resort when centuries of arguing and campaigning for women's basic rights had been ignored.

Violence by trans activists is nearer to a first resort by a recently-constituted group who already have the same rights as anyone else.

edited to say 'I agree...' at the beginning of my post!

As I've said before, Farage can look at all this and follow the law his way of he gains power. The left will have no leg to stand on if they try the "rule of law" attack.

Excellent post

Yeah. The comparison with the suffrage movement and the movement to leverage male people into accessing female single sex provisions doesn’t work on many levels.

It is another flawed analogy being made because a group wishes to force team with other rights movements for credibility and immediate emotional acceptance.

As has been said in so many ways, the group have got the same human rights as all other groups. They are demanding additional privileges while gaslighting others that they see asking for basic human rights.

It’s debatable whether militant action helped women to get the vote or alienated potential supporters and plenty of suffragists opposed law breaking.

However, suffragettes (obviously) didn’t have the right to participate in democracy.

In contrast, actual MPs with the power to propose legislation in parliament have not come up with an alternative to the current law.

I think there is also the factor of focus on the individual vs the collective segment of the population. A person’s conceptualisation of themselves as being the opposite sex to their body’s material reality is very personal and it is individual. This is individualism as opposed to campaigning for the needs of female people to be given equal opportunity compared to male people which is collective in nature.

Of course, the campaign female people to be given equal opportunity compared to male people is also one based in the collective group’s material reality not based purely on subjective reality.

Claiming to be the new gay didn't work, so now they're claiming to be the new suffragettes. Comparing the 'trans' activities to the actions of the suffragettes is their newest and best appropriation of all things to do with women.

I think the disregard for the law is another sign of societal breakdown, a country of millions can only function if there's trust, trust in the government, the state, the law, one another. The trust works if you don't question the details, but take it on faith that everyone is doing their bit. Once the trust is gone, the details become apparent, the cracks and faults become obvious, they inevitably widen and like a sinkhole it all caves in.

If trans activists think it’s okay to ignore the law and the Supreme Court ruling they are also saying it’s okay for employers to ignore the law when it comes to pregnancy discrimination against any female who says they’re a man.

If “TWAW” and should get to go in women’s spaces, then “TMAM” and don’t get the protections offered to women.

Agree with these. I also wonder if there's been a bit of a shift more generally towards picking and choosing which laws you follow, and which you'll ignore because of lack of police visibility/crime clear up, and the consequent complacency.

If you get burgled these days - no chance of the police doing anything. Phone snatched out of your hand? Ditto, even if find my phone shows the actual house the phone is in. Hire a Lime Bike? That comes with a complimentary magic cloak that means none of the Highway Code applies to you, and it's all good as no-one will enforce the rules anyway. Want to stroll down the street smoking ganja in broad daylight? Crack on, no-one will do anything. Fancy raping someone? Might as well, it's more or less de facto legal, judging by the amount of cases brought by the CPS, let alone actual convictions, which are rarer than hen's teeth.

It's like following the rules/law has become completely optional all round. So with mainstream political parties, large corporates, celebrities and unions all parroting the TWAW mantra into the bargain, there's zero chance of anyone enforcing the actual sodding law. Everyone thinks they can just get away with it. They will, as well, unless brave individual women stick their necks out.

What a time to be alive.

I think it’s you that has rather a dramatic understanding of human rights law. Neither the sex discrimination act 1975 nor the Equality Act 2010 came into being because the government was terrorised. That would rather contradict the entire concept of human rights.

Again, the recent SC judgement concerned the definition of sex in the Equality Act and the concept of sex discrimination cannot exist if sex is not defined in law.

A transwoman using a woman's toilet is breaking the law. Not criminal but civil and should be asked to leave. They are also denying women's rights to a single sex provision. Hardly seems reasonable

Perhaps you don't understand how we got our rights in the first place. It wasn't polite conversation - it was acts of terror. Which are and were against the law. A trans woman using the women's loo is hardly comparable to that.

Perhaps you misunderstood what was being considered?

It was a victory to confirm that the protected characteristic of sex exists in law. Without that women would lose the protection from discrimination that they gained in 1975.

There will always be an ongoing debate about when provision should be single sex e.g. some people think single sex schools are a good idea and some don’t. However, a service that can be used by anyone of either sex cannot be single sex.

People have always chosen which parts of unjust laws to follow. Poll Tax, women's suffrage to give two examples. The Supreme Court was crystal clear in that its clarification should not have been seen as a victory for either side - but of course you immediately had Sex Matters and their ilk pretending it was a colossal victory - which it wasn't. And we're now seeing that play out now. There are GC people who do not understand that 'can' does not mean 'must' - and they are acting like toddlers having a tantrum because trans people are still protected in law. Winning the media war is not winning the legal battle.

the Law only matters if it is enforced and if people are willing to abide by it. If it isn’t and they aren’t then it doesn’t matter what it says.

I think it reflects 1. As a society we have stopped understanding that we are responsible for the laws that are passed in parliament by who we choose to vote into power. And we don’t scrutinise policies as we should do so we are then are surprised to find the laws that we don’t like are being enacted by politicians that we voted for. 2. I think politicians have also been duplicitous by adding amendments to laws and not being transparent about the reason why they piggybacked these onto laws that would be passed so that the amendment can avoid scrutiny or challenge.3. There is poor journalism and the media does not scrutinise parliament in any deptH. 4. Politicians seem feel that they do not have to follow the law if they do not agree with it, whilst taking no responsibility for the law being there in the first place or accepting the law has been passed by a Democratic process. 5. there is a lack of trust in institutions which and leaves of government and there’s also been quite a lot of undermining of the judiciary as well. There’s been a move towards feelings or court of opinion. Being more important than the truth and due process.