Kemi Badenoch appointed new Minister for Women and Equalities

[Manteiga]

And International Trade Secretary. I'd have preferred to see her as Secretary of State for Education in addition to Minister for Women and Equalities, but this is good news.

twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1584957913059454976

Do they really have that choice? Does everyone else have that right as well? Why should trans people have rights that other people don't?

Why should trans people have special privileges? And have you ever considered the effects on other people of trans people having those special privileges?

Perhaps you've misunderstood and she's just arguing for trans people to be treated the same as other members of their sex.

And why are you obsessed with toilets?

Indeed! "Superficially black" - can these people hear themselves?

It’s the use of the loaded term ‘privilege’, taken from a US position where being white might indeed give you legal privileges over the non-white. Likewise, I’m old enough to remember when just being male gave male people codified, legal privileges over female people.

Ditto for straight people and non-disabled people. You can often point to the legal privileges; or if not, the removal of that privilege is within living memory.

What becomes divisive is when you apply ‘privilege’ to a situation and a country where being white gives you no legal privileges whatsoever, never has. Then extrapolate from that to insist that a white unemployed working-class person is somehow ‘privileged’ because he’s got a slightly better chance of finding a job than his black neighbour.

Really? Wouldn’t ‘white advantage’ be a better term? And have we got the figures to prove that ‘white advantage’ happens across all classes, both sexes and all races?

Or are we making the same mistake that we did in education, where we assumed the ‘white advantage’ carried across all social classes - only to find that it doesn’t.

Like it or not, and I know you don't, transgender people have the right to use the toilets which match their gender identity. That's the status quo. You can oppose it, but by doing so, you are removing a right that transgender people currently have. To prevent them from doing so would require a change in the law.

Gender identity? No.

There isn’t a single UK law that mentions gender identity.

Stop swallowing Stonewall’s guff.

a) Rubbish, this has been debunked multiple times

b) females have equal rights. Deal with it.

c) yes, of course oppose it because this isn't a male supremacist society and it's totally unbelievable for anyone to witter about rights and access when you only care about males getting to invade female spaces, breach female consent and exclude females while enabling predators to continue to knock up the harm to females in the process.

Anyone sane would see the issues with this.

"Gender identity" is the generally recognised term - the legal term is gender reassasignment, which is a functionally the same thing, and makes absolutely no difference to the fact that transgender people can use the loos of their choice.

transgender people have the right to use the toilets which match their gender identity

This is false. Gender identity isn’t used in the equalities act. Single sex exemptions exist so it’s not a right at all.

You're just making shit up now.

And kittens is the generally recognised term in law for volcanoes. Which means that zebras get free ice cream and anyone who doesn't provide it is a bigot who should die in an ice storm.

Or something.

Can you post a link to the law which states that?

Distract all you like, but transgender people can use the loos of their choice, and you want to stop them. That's a specific right you want to remove.

Loving how we've had pages looking in detail at some of the nuance of the debate on buffer zones around abortion clinics and a man breenges in to drop his opinion on 'cordons'.

And toilets, of course.

So all men and all women can use either men's or women's toilets? I think that's actually true. I don't think there's a law which says that women can't use men's toilets and men can't use women's. (Happy to be corrected if I've got that wrong.)

Nothing to do with being transgender, though.

On the plus side, his nonsense has led you to teach me the word “breenge”, arabella. Just need to figure out how to pronounce it now.

'...the equality act is a shield not a sword. It is there to protect people of all characteristics whether they’re young or old, male or female, black or white, gay or straight, we are running a compassionate equalities strategy and we should not be distracted by people who use Twitter as a way to insult or accuse Members of Parliament.”'

Good stuff, Kemi. (HoC in response to Ben Cohen's accusations of her being 'anti trans')

‘Functionally the same’

Bollocks is it.
Gender reassignment is a one-way protection (not everyone has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment)
Sex is a two way protection (everyone has a sex).

According to Genderism Gender identity is a two (or more) way thing - everyone supposedly has a gender identity, and those of us who deny experiencing such a thing are automatically designated ‘cisgender’.

Thus if ‘gender identity’ were the protected characteristic instead of ‘gender reassignment’ those of us who are ‘cisgender’ would automatically have gender identity based rights too. It would be a two way protected category, like sex.

So we could then divide services and spaces into cisgender and transgender, and then again by sex. This would put ‘transgender women’ into the ‘trans gender identity’ & ‘male sex’ categories

Whereas us boring old fashioned women would be in the ‘cis gender and female sex’ categories.

Male people with a trans gender identity certainly wouldn’t be entitled to spaces for female people with a cis gender identity, just as male people with the additional protection of gender reassignment are not entitled to spaces and services for female people.

HTH.

Think of 'lunge' and 'breeze' mixed together

To make it easier for you - trans women can and do use women's loos. Trans men can and do use men's loos. You do not want trans women in women's loos - you want to make it illegal. Is that right?

Sometimes men use women's loos and sometimes women use men's. What point are you trying to make?

If this were true it would be better described as the right to destroy single sex spaces at will, making them mixed sex and utterly ruining the entire point (validation) of a man using the women's in the first.

Do you or do you not want to ban trans women from women's loos?

James Esses has a useful thread on KB/Pink News argument:

twitter.com/JamesEsses/status/1585003157431517184

I find it surprising Ben Cohen is doubling down, given that he could well be in defamation territory on various counts

I suppose it's a vain hope that 'Pink News' is covered by IPSO or anything similar?