Let Women Speak - a new song to extol the virtues and bravery of KJK!

[IwantToRetire]

If you like folksy ballards this might appeal.

But am really posting to show how LWS has gone global.

US musicians writing about events in NZ organised by UK campaigner!

"This is the Ballad of Posie Parker
Before it gets light it's gotta get darker
Down under in Auckland they thought that they could stop her
But she never loses 'cause she's the Posie Parker"

https://whistle.bandzoogle.com/track/3427154/let-women-speak

So businesses can already specify their toilet categories are sex based? Why don't they do it?

SEX and GENDER are not the same.

Even law makers understood that, as when they allowed the legal fallacy to be granted (ie a male becoming a “woman” in law, or a female becoming a “man” in law), they enshrined absolute exceptions.

Because it can’t actually happen - they just make a law that dictates that in most circumstances people are supposed to accept the pretence that a TW is a “woman” and a TM is a “man” (except where the law makers felt it actually matters - like with inheritance/succession of titles).

Laws can attempt to compel speech and behaviour, but they can’t make delusion a reality.

So businesses can already specify their toilet categories are sex based? Why don't they do it?

Because trans rights activists promote the idea that they can be sued for discrimination.

Those two Oxbridge men don't need to use female facilities do they?

Have you not seen the TRA violence and aggression when they feel “transgressed”?

How would you like to have to deal with that, when it is easier to quote “Stonewall Law” and face only the women who are already having to fight for their rights. Women react by writing, peaceful protests and non-violent action - they don’t threaten to destroy, cancel or enact violence….

I could say the same to you, if it makes no difference, why are trans rights activists throwing their toys out of the pram about the EHRC?

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/clarifying-definition-%E2%80%98sex%E2%80%99-equality-act

Just for you flaffy.

Does it not seem odd to you that the word female allegedly never meant female, and there is no actual word for females?

I think it's because it would make the venue unpopular except among a small subset of people. It would be known as "the terf cafe" and it would be embarrassing to be seen there.

If all you have to worry about is being in a popular café then I think the feminist board may be an odd place to post about it.

Do you not understand the difference between Sex and Gender?

All MALES (sex) with any GENDER identity (ie men/TW/NB males) have the same protected rights. So TW absolutely should have all the protections and human rights compared with other males. Which they do!

Similarly with FEMALES (sex) with any GENDER identity (ie women/TM/NB females).

If transpeople are not comfortable using the toilets/etc of their BIOLOGICAL SEX, they need to campaign for third spaces. Not co-opt single sex spaces or disabled facilities.

Are there cafés in Oxford and Cambridge that are either embarrassing or popular?

What a life! Such hardship! Human rights violations all over the high street. You might accidentally enter an embarrassing café!

Oh shit. Right. You believe the delusions. Ok.

☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️

They currently have the right to access toilets etc based on their gender or indeed their sex or whatever, it's not legally controlled. If the right to access spaces based on their gender was taken away then that removes some rights. Rights would be removed. I was asked what rights they're defending, as if there aren't any, and I've given an example of rights they are defending. You think that right should be taken away and people should only be able to access spaces based on their sex. So they're defending that right from people who think the same way you do.

I'm not worried about entering an unpopular cafe, I'm saying that's a reason why most businesses wouldn't make their toilets explicitly same sex only. Because it would be marking themselves out as aligning with a controversial political movement. And why would they want that hassle.

Flaffy, the exemptions for single sex spaces are optional, not mandatory and always have been. There will still be options, the clarification just means single sex will be clear in guidance and less open to legal threats.

It's balanced.

Cafes for all.

They currently have the right to access toilets etc based on their gender or indeed their sex or whatever, it's not legally controlled.

All men, not just the ones identifying as women have the "right" to access women's spaces. It's disingenuous to pretend that it's enshrined in the law that "trans people" can.

So, you don't want the law to change but you want some kind of statement that it is indeed acceptable to limit your services to single sex in certain circumstances if you wish? Why do we need that? If we can already do it?

Then it takes away the right from everyone. But trans people are the ones who are affected by it which is why they care about it.

I'm saying that's a reason why most businesses wouldn't make their toilets explicitly same sex only.

I think many businesses would if that's what their female customers wanted, and it was clearly allowed in law. They possibly can provide an additional gender neutral space. But given this belief of yours, what's the problem you have with clarifying the law?

So, you don't want the law to change but you want some kind of statement that it is indeed acceptable to limit your services to single sex in certain circumstances if you wish? Why do we need that? If we can already do it?

Why wouldn't you want to clarify this, given all the misinformation floating around? What difference would it make to you and trans rights activists?

Then it takes away the right from everyone.

It doesn't, it's a request for clarification of existing law.

I don't really understand about the clarification of the law thing. I don't know why gender critical people want it so much if it apparently doesn't change anything and I don't know why trans activists care about it if it apparently doesn't change anything. Everyone says it doesn't change anything but it's also very important. So there's something I don't understand there.

So, you don't want the law to change but you want some kind of statement that it is indeed acceptable to limit your services to single sex in certain circumstances if you wish?
That already exists in the Equality Act 2010.
Why do we need that?
Because there has been a huge effort to claim single sex means both sexes.

If we can already do it?

Because there has been a huge effort made to insist that in EQ2010 female includes male and female and vice versa on the basis of gender identity, not sex.

Where have you been? Are you new to this?

When I say "it" I'm not talking about the specifics of the 'clarification of the law' which I just said I don't understand. I mean anything that takes away the right of people to access spaces according to their gender, if they currently have that right and there is something that would take that right away. Whatever that law might be.

When I say "it" I'm not talking about the specifics of the 'clarification of the law' which I just said I don't understand. I mean anything that takes away the right of people to access spaces according to their gender, if they currently have that right and there is something that would take that right away. Whatever that law might be.

The exemptions have always been sex.

The claims have been that gender reassignment changes sex for the purpose of the exemptions without exception. The clarification is that biological sex is the basis of optional exemptions and so exclusion of people can indeed be legal on that basis.

It's really not complicated unless you are male and want the obfuscation to continue.