Kemi is on the case!

[SleekMamma]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/32012712-d2ef-11ed-b1cd-5223fe349502?shareToken=f8d230bb699c280b7ebafca5e872e305

Go Kemi Go Kemi

Theres probably a campaign to set up lots of different email addresses & keep signing.

Maybe a male identifying as a woman has a female email for kicks and a male one for reality. Two votes for the price of one.

Penis News shared a link to it today.

Funny typo, only 10 years off the actual date!

Bláthannabuí· Today 07:53
ScrollingLeaves is there a petition that I can sign to change the equality act? I haven't read the thread but I'll sign & whatsapp to all my friends & family

Here you are @Bláthannabuí áthannabuí. This is the petition to update the Equality Act to make clear the protected characteristic Sex is biological, not sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate. You have until April 20th.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

By the way, when you get on to the Parliamentary page you’ll see a Government response. That was in response to the first 10,000 signatures. Don’t read it and think there is no need to sign because they make it seen everything is fine as it is.This response failed to answer what the petition was about.

When you have signed, you might like to write to your MP.
https://sex-matters.org/take-action/write-to-your-mp-about-the-petition/
They give you a template, but if possible , it would be good to use your own words

@Bláthannabuí· Today 07:53

Slothtoes · Today 08:30
OK hope I’m not treading on ScrollingLeavestoes but I am just going to leave it here as I have it handy: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

Thank you Slothtoes. Of course not. I missed seeing you’d done this, thanks. I just did it too, tagging Bláthannabuí.

Yes, there are too many on both the front and back benches who have too much invested in Self ID, and who have some serious history of referring to FPFW and Others as 'hate groups'. Starmer is two faced and cannot be trusted.

My MP refuses to meet with her constituents on the issue and we have been told we are " wasting our time" as she will " not change her mind".

Bláthannabuí · Today 08:33
Thank you, went to sign but I'm not a UK resident, I live in Irelsbd so I can't buy I will send on to all my friends & family in the UK now via WhatsApp
Cheering you guys on from accross the water

If by any chance you are a U.K.citizen, @Blathannabui,you can still sign even if you are not a U.K. resident.

British citizens and UK residents can then sign your petition — and can only sign a petition once.

After signing, if you can sign, remember you have to click the link they send to your email. This confirms your signature.

Well they are wasting their time. Kemi seems committed.

That counter petition has 67000 signatures already and it’s deadline is 15 May.

It was started last November and reached 10,000 for a response which was given 25 January. It is now evidently getting signatures very quickly. The rate may be several thousand an hour.

Would that be students signing, or is there a way to cheat with different email addresses and VPNs? The petition asks for a tick that you are a British citizen or U.K. resident, name, email address, post code and location (such as U.K.).

Would there be some system that checks for any apparent anomalies?

The petitions are there to work for all people with all points of view, and I have no doubt the government and EHRC are fully aware there are strong feelings on either side.

But to continue to privilege male people's choices over the equality and human rights of women is wrong. It cannot continue. It does not work for women, even if it does work for and make a small percentage of men happy.

And therein is the problem. Women want equality. Those pushing for this want those males to matter more and have more at the expense of women, to exclude vulnerable women, to deny rights to women, and for this to just go on being ok as the court cases stack up.

It is not ok. Answers have to work for everyone. Not just trans people.

I also think it's a mistake for the TQ+ political lobby to believe this is solely about a petition having gained weight.

This has come about through a decade of challenges coming from a law which in 2004 never countenanced this many people, this impact on women, or that this was effectively preventing homosexual people being permitted groups of their own, women to meet alone, women to have access to single sex spaces and same sex hcps particularly women with other vulnerabilities and inclusion needs, and women to be allowed sport, .

It has come about through the general public being increasingly aware and concerned of the behaviour, aggression and misogyny of the activists and political lobby involved. The lack of respect for other people's needs and boundaries, an inability to permit reciprocation, generosity, permitting other people's needs to be met too. And it culminated in the screaming lynch mobs the other weekend, and the fracturing of an elderly woman's skull, and a 72 year old lesbian being protected by fundamentalist christians from a mob claiming to be speaking for LGBT people.

A petition to please go on privileging male people with TQ+ identities over women's equality and rights, and to damage public trust in the police, and to batter women who do not agree, is not going to achieve much now.

If this becomes a pissing up the wall contest between two petitions, and MPs do the "both sides" equivalency crap, women in this country will rightly explode.

It is a zero sum game.

Male people cannot have freedom of access and control of female people's boundaries AND female people still have equality of access and human rights.

This does nothing to remove legal protections for equality of people with all TQ+ identities, but it would restore female control of boundaries in designated single sex spaces to female people.

I have to question why anyone would have concerns about this.

The darkest red parts on the petition map are where there are universities.

Have we all seen Helen Belcher’s cringey attempt at emotional manipulation of the EHRC?

I’ll link in the next post as it’s an archive link and might get stuck in the AI filter. Here’s some screen shots…

It is frustrating that this has been represented in some reports as changing the EA, rather than amending the wording - to be tautological actually - to say that Sex means biological sex - which was what was always meant.

If Sex had not meant biological sex, it would have said Gender.

The act mentioned man or woman, male of any age or female of any age. Look in a good dictionary of the time and male and female are defined as the two sexes, and these are described through their biological functions.

The meaning got fouled up over time by the double sided GRA wording saying gender one minute, sex the other; and by the lobby groups conflating sex and gender.

The sex based exceptions lost out on their right to the law in many cases.

Tras are treating it as though those sex based exceptions were never part of the Act in the first place but they were.

From that screen shot of Belcher’s words clearly “biological” could also mean a body as modified by hormones, and as reimagined.

^such as hormonal makeup, ah, for example, or psychological makeup which
might, which also come under the term biological, which should also be part of the sex definition?^

I think I mentioned above: Belcher is protesting to the exact same circumstances Belcher has felt entitled to inflict on women.

How is Belcher supposed to access public life as a woman if female people are permitted boundaries to single sex spaces that Belcher cannot transgress?

But the answer of the TQ+ lobby as to how women who cannot access mixed sex spaces are supposed to access public life as a woman if male people control female people's boundaries and will not permit female only spaces? Is that those women don't matter, exclusion is fine, insert abuse for those women <here> .

There was an opportunity for the TQ+ lobby and people such as Belcher to not turn this into a zero sum game, and they have been clear that they will never willingly accept female people being permitted equality of access or rights that present male people with unwanted boundaries and control.

They were offered a reasonable accommodation. They rejected it. My heart bleeds purple piss for them.

Hear, hear!

In my ideal world, the Tories would strengthen and clarify the Equality Act, then be voted out.

Trans people would still be protected because a) gender reassignment will still be a protected characteristic and b) people who are wrongly perceived to have a protected characteristic are also protected against discrimination.

What does it mean simply in practise?

Can a male who identifies as transgender still access female spaces?

If somewhere is single sex I’m guessing not?

So they have a GRC but can’t go into a single sex space, can they even do that now

Not sure what’s being lost on their side. Haven’t really kept up with the detail on all this

Bustarold · 04/04/2023 17:40

Does Kemi stand up for all women including refugees, single mothers, homeless women? The Tories are gaslighting feminists, throwing us red meat while ignoring urgent and pressing issues that affect women every day. They don't care about women or anyone who's not privileged, but let's keep clapping our hands because they "know what a woman is", eh?
They are vile

Is it rich women who find themselves in prison so despised as a class that the powers that be can tell them a male criminal will be housed with them regardless of what they want? Regardless of the fact this is even against the Geneva convention?

Do poor women not get raped and want the safety and dignity of a female only crisis centre?

Do poor women and their vulnerable children not deserve to go to a domestic violence refuge free from seeing a male there?

Do poor women have the money to go to a private hospital where they can get a room away from an NHS hospital where there may be males on the ward?

Do poor women who don’t have money for private treatment not deserve to be able to ask for same sex intimate care?

Should poor Muslim women have to exclude themselves from going swimming because no female only swimming is available?

Do poor women deserve changing rooms with men in them? Are British female footballers rich as a class?

Should any women be excluded from competitive sport because there is no point in competing against men?

Should no girls have the chance of an all girls’ state education where available?

If a poor women has written a novel, ( writer’s are not rich) does she deserve to lose her place for a prize to a man on the all woman’s short list?