I live in Rosie Duffields constituency. Just had local election door knock from labour party

[BadgerWadger]

He asked what my main concerns were. I said my main issue was that i stood with Rosie and felt that Labour, as a party, from the top down, did not offer her enough support. And my main concern was womens safe spaces.

Man said, well, this is local elections and not about that, and that issue is more complicated than you think. What are your concerns, locally?

I said the local council is involved in issues to do with womens safe spaces. Like the womens refuges, the womans changing room at the local pool, etc. All spaces where biological men should not have access and that womens safe spaces was my main concern.

There followed a debate. And his stance is that its not that simple, i am being brainwashed by the right wing media, and that Rosie is in fact, (drumroll please...), mainly being supported by American right wing anti abortion groups.

Arrrrrghhhhhh. So that is where my local labour door knockers are at. Saying Rosies main core of support is American right wing anti abortion groups and i am being fooled by them. Silly, foolish, female me.

As far as I am aware the EA doesn't mandate a hierarchy of characteristics
it may seem in practice that some take precedence over others, but its not there in the Act

Its not spelt out as this, but it is in the way it is written. eg given that women are the bigger group you would have thought that logically, the act would mean sex to be biological but in drafting in the SSE they were saying trans people are the dominant group, but acknowledge there needs to be exemptions to allow that on occassion same sex services etc, are needed.

Usually exemptions would be for those in the minority position.

But in fact by reversing the normal logic they have made a tiny minority the priority / dominant group.

So they have created precedence. If they hadn't they wouldn't have realised they had to create (and effectively recognise that women are disadvanteged compared to trans rights) single sex exemptions.

ie the exemptions should have been the right of a trans person to have a marriage certificate saying they were wife / husband when biologically they aren't. And Passports and so on. Otherwise for 99% of the population sex remained sex.

Instead we have the complete upside down reality of women not being able to act normally as women, which is to work with and find support from other women.

That's why the Lady Haldene court case was significant. Not that it could ever have changed what the law says, but as a huge consciousness raising exercise that meant many women who weren't aware their rights had been taken away by the very bill that was meant to entrench their protected characteristic, have now become aware.

The 'smear' alluded to by VictorStrand was that Rosie Duffield is supported by right-wing organisations. This is a constant trope used against women who are gender critical feminists (along with Terf). I don't actually see the connection between being a Euro-sceptic and believing that transwomen are men and that women need sex-segregated spaces and services to maintain privacy and decency - at least I did not until I realised just recently how pro-trans the EU is. No idea how that goes with their gay and lesbian policies, considering that the transagenda is homophobic i.e. cotton ceiling, which really makes me angry (the entitlement of a man saying he is a lesbian and demanding that women who are same sex attracted have sex with him!).

decency - meant dignity. Sex segregated spaces to maintain privacy and dignity.

Got home today to find a 'we called to see you today, sorry we missed you' flyer from the local Labour candidate. Damn!

There's an email address, mind, and that's tempting.

I'm not engaging with the sealion. I've no idea why anyone is.

The EA doesn't mandate a hierarchy of characteristics. It also doesn't fully address how to respond when protected characteristics are in conflict. The fact that Stonewall has somehow hoodwinked organisations into thinking trans rights are the most important PC - doesn't mean they are correct or that their position is supported in law. In fact, all the organisations that brief that gender reassignment is a higher priority than sex or belief or disability, are deliberately briefing incorrectly in the hope of creating confusion. The current SNP leadership debate is a perfect example of MRAs and TRAs hoping people don't realise religion or belief is a PC that is just as valid as sex, orientation and gender reassignment.

I didn't say mandate, but by its wording it has. And as we know the law in practice looks at how it is written.

And if there wasn't a hierarchy in practice, single sex exemptions would have had to be written. They were written because trans protection was put first.

That is great.

I can see why someone who isn't a solicitor could try to interpret it that way but that isn't how the law or the Act works. No-one is confused about this except TRAs and MRAs who are deliberately trying to pretend they are the most protected of the PCs. They aren't. They never have been. Even the attempt to pretend they are is fairly new.

And if there wasn't a hierarchy in practice, single sex exemptions would have had to be written. They were written because trans protection was put first.

They're not trans-based exemptions. They apply to all men (in the case of female spaces). They clarified in the notes that in many cases that would include MTF trans people, because some people might assume otherwise. So yes, single sex exemptions would always have needed to be included.

The 'smear' alluded to by VictorStrand was that Rosie Duffield is supported by right-wing organisations. This is a constant trope used against women who are gender critical feminists (along with Terf).

I imagine ijclark spouts this misogynistic nonsense like breathing and is just being disingenuous because he believes she is. As I said earlier, he could potentially even be the canvasser mentioned in the OP.

Canterbury council (Con) are copying Oxford's daft scheme to stop vehicle traffic moving between different areas. The other parties locally are opposed. What a topsy-turvy world it must be down there where the Conservative council are behaving like the Greens.

Can you clarify…do you think right-wing groups don’t agree with her on trans rights?

Hardly. I’ve only voted Labour twice, both times for duffield. I’ve got no interest in canvassing for Labour 😂

I hope they knock at mine

I live in hope that they will rock up at mine too!

I do think right-wing groups, and various religious groups (Christian, Muslim etc) agree with Rosie Duffield about transwomen being men, and probably that women should have sex-segregated spaces (in the case of Muslims, they definitely believe that). Rosie Duffield has not said that transpeople aren't entitled to be protected (gender reassignment is a PC under the EA2010, as are sex, religion or belief, sexual orientation, marriage/civil partnership, pregnancy, age and disability) from discrimination. She seems to believe that trans rights should not trump women's sex based rights, and I am very sure she is correct.

I agree, report him

The Act lists PCs in alphabetical order. Even a lawyer can see that, surely? No priority is suggested.

I hope they knock at mine, I’ll be outlining to them that I won’t vote for an MP who breaches the data protection rights of her constituents, who appears on news channels that spout antisemitism and blocks women in the constituency who dare to have a different opinion to her.

“I do think right-wing groups, and various religious groups (Christian, Muslim etc) agree with Rosie Duffield about transwomen being men, and probably that women should have sex-segregated spaces (in the case of Muslims, they definitely believe that).”

in which case, it’s not a smear then.

do you think right-wing groups don’t agree with her on trans rights?

You do understand that them agreeing with her isn't her being "supported" by them (shorthand for financed), and some right wing groups doubtless agree with some of your opinions about the colour of the sky and the country Paris is in. Rosie Duffield recognises the scientific existence of biological sex as the basis of women's specific needs and rights, while anti abortionists are religious traditionalists who believe god created women to have children. But good of you to demonstrate that you are aware any claims of her being personally bankrolled by anti abortion groups are in fact, groundless smears.

ijclark · Today 17:46

Bloody hell, it’s so rare she replies to emails. Probably handy for her to know what most of the constituency thinks of her, so I hope the candidate in question tells her to her face how unpopular she is.

I hope I can help you with some advice, about getting MPs to reply to your emails. The main point is that you stop writing them in Da-Glo Orange Giant Crayola.

She has a 1,836 vote majority, by the way. My cousin is a schoolteacher in her constituency and she likes her.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 19:08

You do understand that them agreeing with her isn't her being "supported" by them (shorthand for financed), and some right wing groups doubtless agree with some of your opinions about the colour of the sky and the country Paris is in.

It's all his lot have got, non sequiturs, strawmen, guilt by association and bare faced lies.

So why the man at UEA, not to mention Lia Thomas feel that they need to flaunt their meat & two veg around changing rooms is a complete mystery.

I think you’ve made a massive leap there. No-one has suggested she’s financed. “Supported” isn’t shorthand for financial support. Saying she’s backed by right-wing groups is though. But as I recall, the OP didn’t claim that was what was said.