Accessible Toilets

[WarOnWomen]

I've just seen this thread by Fair Play for Women regarding their stance on toilets. Maya F is also on the thread clarifying the issue.

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1312062467191734273?s=21

They are saying that everyone should be comfortable choosing the toilets they want to without being forced to share with opposite sex. Yup. Trans people should also not have to share with people designated at birth. Yup, also agree. Have a mix sex category for people who don't mind and trans people. Sure.

They are saying these facilities already exist. Accessible toilets. This is where I feel lost and let down. These toilets are for disabled people. People worked hard to get these accessible toilets. I don't want my mum having to share these toilets with trans women, anymore than I want them in female spaces. It's just wrong. And don't disabled people have a say as part of the EA2010?

Please tell me I have the wrong end of the stick.

But will pretend that the sex to whom this refers is such a nebulous group, they cannot even be defined.

To quote jj from earlier: how convenient.

I'm rather enjoying the Olympic-level DARVO manoeuvre though.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I'm rather enjoying the Olympic-level DARVO manoeuvre though.

Definitely Gold Medal worthy.

🏅🏅At least 2

I am stunned that you would write this but it tells me all I need to know about you, zero compassion for the women in that shelter subject to the behaviour of the individual involved. Their own words were proof enough of how much they were enjoying what they were doing and the discomfort and fear of the women they were doing it to and here you are sweeping in on their side, championing them, dismissing the effect their actions had on the women involved. You really think women are sub human and beings not worthy of any compassion or consideration don't you.

I think it is perfectly possible to make your point without picking on an individual homeless person and shaming them across the internet for a stupid tweet that for all you know isn't even true, chaotic people say all sorts of things. The reasons the women who ran that shelter were so upset is because it can take very little to tip an individual person like that into crisis, and it's the workers who see the results of that and have to pick up the pieces, if there are indeed any pieces left to pick up. Its utterly shameful behaviour in my view and shows you know nothing about the entire sector you are claiming to protect.

I really think some elements of the GC movement have completely lost their moral compass. Perhaps that is the result of a politics that seems to celebrate not being kind. It makes me think reading some of the desperately sad stories of gender critical people who have lost friends or whose kids won't speak to them anymore that perhaps it's not because they don't understand basic biology, but because you do callous shit like this to a vulnerable homeless person and seem to think it's perfectly okay and normal. It's why people think you're a hate movement.

It's why people think you're a hate movement.

Nah.

Pretty much everything TRAs do or say concerning women and girls is "utterly shameful behaviour", so spare us the moralising.

Women in the shelter have rights to not be put in that position. The male person, however vulnerable, should not be accommodated with vulnerable women. It's perfectly possible for abusers to be vulnerable in terms of mental health issues.

SAFEGUARDING

Meanwhile all the really vulnerable women in the shelter go back to the abusive men they left because if feels safer. And when they get beaten to a pulp or murdered, they're just another sad statistic. And no one asks what they could have done to make that shelter, which was set up by women and funded by women, safer and better for the very women it was set up for. Because they can't ask those questions or they'd be cancelled and lose their funding.

It's another form of male violence against women, just much more insidious.

Still no word about the actual women JJ.

This is full on proof that despite claims nothing ever happens or there's no conflict of interests , women were placed in danger and had their dignity orivacy and safety stripped away to allease someone born male. Whatever that person did or didn't intend it happened. They wonen were abised by heing exposed to male bodies without their consent and it proves once and fir all that it is a safguarding issue. It does happen. And there is a huge conflict of rights

[quote jj1968]@testing987654321

You are incorrect I'm afraid. Discrimination law is based on the perception of others, not the identity of the individual. So a straight woman who was discriminated against because for some reason she was perceived to be a lesbian would be protected under the Equality Act regardless of her actual sexuality.

And how do you verify someone's sexuality is fairly normal ways?[/quote]
Wrong. Again. Please, please jj1968 read the Equality Act itself and not just the codes.

First and foremost, decisions on whether someone who has a protected characteristic has been directly or indirectly discriminated against, harassed or victimised depends on the claimant actually having that protected characteristic. This is the more important provision and a claimant who both has a protected characteristic and is perceived to have one is expected to first argue discrimination or harassment on the basis of actually having that protected characteristic.

There is nothing in the text of the Equality Act itself that includes or directly references perception. However, the government clearly intended to criminalise direct discrimination or harassment on that basis, because it said so on the record. Nonetheless, the text of the law itself only talks of people having a protected characteristic.

Legal recourse on the basis of perception and association was mostly discussed in the context of discrimination on the basis of a perceived disability or a claimant's association with a person with the protected characteristic of disability, but that wasn't tested until the Coffey case. In 2017, an Employment Tribunal had agreed that the claimant had been discriminated against on the basis of a perceived disability. And in 2019, for the first time ever, the Court of Appeal actually upheld this decision.

Direct discrimination or harassment claims based on other perceived protected characteristics have not yet been tested and claiming indirect discrimination on the basis of perception or association is not possible. The government rejected a specific amendment on perceived disability to make claims easier btw, and the language on this in the Act was kept deliberately vague. The nearest we come to perception and association is under Harassment where the law talks of "unwanted conduct relating to a protected characteristic ". (Which is why the recent Coffey decision is so important for disability rights.)

The actual protection in regard to perception and association in this and other cases comes from the Employment Code as written by the EHRC. They interpreted the Act in line with the stated government intentions, something which held sway in court.

(The same cannot be said about the EHRC's interpretation of the interplay between gender reassignment and the existing sex-based protections and other rights, because there the government vehemently denied in both Houses that it intended this to work in the ways now claimed by trans rights campaigners.)

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Pretty much everything TRAs do or say concerning women and girls is "utterly shameful behaviour", so spare us the moralising.

Women in the shelter have rights to not be put in that position. The male person, however vulnerable, should not be accommodated with vulnerable women. It's perfectly possible for abusers to be vulnerable in terms of mental health issues.

It's also possible to make your point about the organisation without attacking an individual service user as some kind of shock value.

Bet you the women in the shelter got a shock too !!

Be kind be kind be kind.

Not to women. Do't be kind to them - they're horrible.

But be kind be kind be kind.

It's also possible to make your point about the organisation without attacking an individual service user as some kind of shock value.

That male person is the entire problem. Why do you think it was shocking, to hear a male boast about invading women's space and intimidating and sexually harassing women?

Still no word about the actual women JJ.

Quite telling really, isn't it. Almost like they're not important to jj at all.

It never seems to be the right tine to bring up and/or deal with ^womens'* concerns/problems.

Always someone else having a harder time who needs us to think of them be kind to them

It doesn't happen as we can't prove it. We prove it but in the wrong way.

Always the bottok of the pile eveb on their own bloody spaces. Still having to centre the feekimgs of XY people eveb when they jave no regard for us whatsoever

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It's also possible to make your point about the organisation without attacking an individual service user as some kind of shock value.

That male person is the entire problem. Why do you think it was shocking, to hear a male boast about invading women's space and intimidating and sexually harassing women?

Because things people with mental health problems might say or do can be shocking out of context. And you don't even know if it's true, it could just be someone having a manic episode and posting daft shit because they thought it was funny. If you don't like the fact the shelter houses trans women take it up with the management instead of potentially ruining an already vulnerable person's life.

I notice you haven't called them a woman

Almost like you dont believe it yourself

So you attack others for showing the words and actions of someone who posted it themselves from a womans shelter, refuse to even acknowledge what trauma that must have caused the women and you wont even "correctly gender " the culprit.. 🤔

If you don't like the fact the shelter houses trans women take it up with the management instead of potentially ruining an already vulnerable person's life.

What about the vulnerable women? I'm going to keep saying it until you acknowledge their existence.

Women aren't support humans, we're not there for the benefit of males with mental health issues, or any other males, to unload on.

In the case of Barbie Kardashian, say. I feel compassion for Barbie and the terrible history they've experienced. I ALSO feel compassion for the social worker attacked, Barbie's mother having to go into hiding, and the women in limerick Prison at risk from this violent offender, the women on limerick's streets. You're saying the k my one who matters here is Barbie, and not a whisper of concern shown for the many other women at risk. It's quite stark and it's callous in the extreme.

As for the person with the hard on in the women's shelter - that story need shared because nobody believe that women are at risk. Nobody believes Karen White would happen, or any of then other very many examples that show starkly what gc feminists are warning of. I've seen it play out on social media - TRAs claim women are never at risk from transwomen. Examples are given. Then gc women are attacked for being unkind to Karen White, etc. Because we should just shut up, and not mention the inconvenient reality that self ID will and does put vulnerable.women at risk.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Women aren't support humans, we're not there for the benefit of males with mental health issues, or any other males, to unload on.

And how do you know she was unloading on the other residents. From those tweets even if true there's no evidence the other residents even saw her when she was topless. When I lived in a hostel it would have been perfectly possible to go to the toilet and make toast without even seeing anyone else.

You've fucked your movement doing things like this. Nobody who works with vulnerable homeless people would view this with anything but utter horror. Even the likes of the Daily Mail stopped this kind of shit long ago. When all this started I knew a lot of people who were undecided on the trans issue and defended the gender critical movement on the grounds of women having reasonable concerns. I don't see those same people defending you anymore. They can see exacty who you are now. Sunlight at last.