Feminists want trans women to show passports at public lavatories, claims Labour MP Angela Eagle

[IwantToRetire]

Dame Angela Eagle, who is standing to be a Commons committee chairman, said lavatories were being “policed” at the expense of those who don’t conform to gender norms.

The MP for Wallasey said the heated debate about <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/Y3zfs/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/12/labour-mp-challenge-keir-starmer-single-sex-spaces/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">trans people using single-sex spaces revolved around “recreating and then enforcing” gender stereotypes.
S
peaking at a fringe event at the Trades Union Congress conference in Liverpool, she criticised <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/Y3zfs/www.telegraph.co.uk/kemi-badenoch/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, for seeking to change the wording of the Equality Act to specify that it protects “<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/Y3zfs/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/13/gender-neutral-lavatories-are-an-invasion-of-womens-privacy/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">biological sex”.

This would make it clear that trans women have to use the men’s lavatories, while trans men have to use the ladies’, Dame Angela said.

‘Policed at public facilities’She added: “Whilst that may affect a small number of people, the actual effect is that loads of non-gender-conforming women will effectively be being policed in their use of public facilities.

“We’ve never had to show a passport to get into the toilet before. I dread to think what else they might want us to show if they change the law.”

Dame Angela warned that people would be “challenged using the toilets” for merely deviating from gender norms, citing a “butch-looking woman” as someone at risk.

“This is all about recreating and then enforcing appearance, behaviour, making certain that you actually behave and look the way your sex, your gender ought to look,” she said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/11/feminists-want-trans-women-to-show-passport-to-use-lavatory/

She was speaking at a fringe event at the Trades Union Congress conference. Article behind paywall but available to read at https://archive.ph/ just paste in the Telegraph link.

I believe that the reason we can't just repeal the GRA is because it is now understood in the international human rights community that in order to have a good human rights record a country must have a legal mechanism for allowing people to change their gender.

This community have completely lost the plot. It is not a human right to be legally permitted to be something fictional of your choice: human rights are things like:

not being raped,
not being assaulted,
not having a politicised police weaponised against you to control your speech and freedoms,
not being forced to undress in the presence of the opposite sex,
not having your livelihood removed by a political dictatorship if you fail to comply
not being forced into a political membership or belief against your own beliefs and will......

You know, all the stuff they now believe should happen, plus fixing in law that female humans aren't allowed words and are sexual resources for men.

Like many other things, this movement has fucked up the human rights community beyond all residual purpose, but is clinging to it as a weapon while shouting 'if you say no to this you want slavery/genocide'. It's like they've emptied out 'LGBT' of homosexual people so they can bang people on the head with it shouting 'if you hesitate about putting rapist men in with women or very dodgy male people doing highly sexualised drag to entertain themselves with your child you hate gay people'. The degree of manipulation has to be seen to be believed.

At this point, the human rights commission has no interest in women and believes in supporting the inner lives of men. It can fuck off. My respect for it has gone. Repeal the bloody GRA and stuff it. Women owe no respect or care or loyalty to anyone or anything that has no respect or care for them.

It is beyond reason

They have lost the plot

As for 'well without the HRC the death penalty would come back'.... yes, I see your point. But I have to point out in reply that all the protections in there for women exist too, and the HRC has done fuck all in preventing all this happening anyway, in direct contradiction, and has in fact helped women's rights under the bus.

So if a political movement used the mad strategies and captured them, the death penalty would be brought back regardless. Why would you expect it to suddenly work on other matters but not these ones it's closed its eyes to because it's currently politically fashionable and their mates were talked into compliance? It's toothless, pointless, politically captured, fad and fashion driven, and soggy past redemption.

It’s only the ECHR not every country is part of it

Plenty do ok outside it and still top the human rights charts

Although at this point I’m questioning the damn charts because do you need to tick yes to change sex to get a good grade?

It’s all captured if so

https://twitter.com/LucyHunterB/status/1701371759767732282

Good commentary here from Lucy Hunter Blackburn of MBM policy:

'This is a demonstration of agonisingly poor thinking about law, policy and practice, from someone who I assume expects to be in government, making law and policy, sometime soon.'

'Astonishingly, after the opening paragraphs, it gets even worse. The person in charge of the main union representing academic staff...'
[image shows quote from Jo Grady on there being no 'right to offend']

'If you analyse anything on a false premise, based on making no effort to listen to what people are actually saying, and inserting subtexts other people have told you to hear, then, yes, reasonable things will start to sound unreasonable..'

'People should definitely shy away from making the point she just made, because it makes them sound like they let themselves by spoonfed lines, and have suffered a complete collapse of their critical faculties and capacity to analyse material for themselves.'

I hope that makes sense, I've c&p'd the tweets for those who can't read them, but there are screenshots of quotes from Eagle's speech in amongst them.

Yes, I'd agree with all of that.

It's good to see this nonsense being taken apart for the incoherent, silly mess it is.

We really are living in the Age Of Dumb.
And they are oblivious, or embrace it and double down.

Isn't Angela Eagle the politician who back in the mists of time was involved in a brick throwing attack that turned out not to be an attack on her at all and was something to do with her getting on with/not getting on with Jeremy Corbyn?

Iirc, a brick was put through a window in a building that housed her constituency office. It was immediately claimed, possibly not by AE directly, that this was the work of Corbyn supporters who were probably antisemitic. The damaged window later turned out to be in a communal part of the building. I don't know if the culprit was found. It's possible AE was bang on the money. Or perhaps events were spun to suit her cause. Not like now of course

Maybe we need to bump up women’s rights in the human rights criteria again

If you don’t consider out privacy and dignity plus safeguarding a big down grade for you. Whether a country, company or institution

Ditto children and safeguarding

The whole thing stinks and is obviously not working for us and we are half the population (over including children)

image shows quote from Jo Grady on there being no 'right to offend

Apart from anything else, where the bloody hell has she been? The world and his wife will tell anyone who'll listen that yes they have the bloody right to offend.

People never stop going on about it.

From Stephen Fry to Ricky Gervais, via Harry the Owl, with stops at Jordan Peterson and Toby Young.

She's swallowed the TRA playbook whole. Unfortunately, it's the 2015 edition. There have been a zillion hasty re-writes since then.

That 'late to the party' poster was challenged and down liked though. Telegraph comments on this issue are typically 99.9% gender critical although some moan they wish the Telegraph would stop using that terminology as it is just common sense.
Those who disagree are challenged politely in the main or ignored.

APPG is an abbreviation I keep misreading.

If I literally deny someone's existence, "you're just an hallucination", yes, that's protected free speech.

If I deny someone's identity claim, that's still protected free speech. So some random guy comes along claiming to be "the Queen of England", yes, I can deny it.

And yes you can still deny identity claims when it's tied up with questions of rights. "I'm the Queen of England so I have such and such rights", can be objected to, if you reasonably believe that they aren't actually the Queen of England.

That a Labour MP appears to want to make her opponents' speech illegal is rather worrying.

Jo Grady is wrong about many things.

I am an ex member of UCU.

I find it deeply offensive to be called 'cis', to be told that people have changed sex and I must believe it, that women have no rights to women only spaces, and that as a lesbian I should 'learn to cope' with straight sex.

I doubt Jo meant THAT sort of offense though. She does in fact mean she wants to decide which points of view may and may not be permitted and police it accordingly. In fact she'd probably quite like living in North Korea or Animal Farm, and she can trot off there and leave the rest of us alone, because it's barmy.

Late to the thread, but MrsOvertonsWindow “Angela Eagle, out of her depth on a freshly mopped floor”
😂😂😂
Only funny because AE is demonstrating how true it is

It's actually quite transphobic, it says trans people won't respect the law on single sex spaces i.e. don't respect boundaries i.e. are untrustworthy.

We don't check everyone's driving license and insurance before they get in a car, we assume most people will just comply (and have penalties for if they don't and are found out to have broken the law).

It's actually quite transphobic, it says trans people won't respect the law on single sex spaces i.e. don't respect boundaries i.e. are untrustworthy.

Indeed. That's why that argument is on the wane.

Freely admitting that transwomen will behave in a criminal fashion, by entering spaces from which they are banned, probably isn't the most effective form of trans advocacy.

Honestly, who responds to, 'we want a female only space' with, 'well, men who don't care are coming in, and there's nothing you can do about it' and fondly imagines they're in the right??

Somebody ought to introduce Angela Eagle to the idea of third 'gender neutral' facilities. Get with it, Angela.

I see Pink News have now picked this up - about 20m mins ago. They must have a full time role for someone to scan this forum on the lookout for news stories.

Yep.

Women, don't be silly! You have nothing to fear from men who have no respect for you or your boundaries , will decieve you anyway if they can, (the whole 'how will you know' argument) and plan to do whatever they want in the face of your protest.

Batshit. Absolutely insane.

“Honestly, who responds to, 'we want a female only space' with, 'well, men who don't care are coming in, and there's nothing you can do about it' and fondly imagines they're in the right??”

Very well put.

I think in the past without really checking I assumed Angela Eagle wouldn't necessarily be someone I wanted to be friends with but thought to stick it out in the Labour Party, get elected as an MP and come out as lesbian meant she must have some qualities.

But after the Westminister Hall debate on the EA I was totally taken aback. She appeared not only extremely foolish, made wild claims about what lesbians did or did not want, but frighteningly superficial.

What is more worrying is that Labour probably loves having a token lesbian to make them look inclusive, but this mean she has influenced way beyond her ability.

So seeing the report about her speech I wasn't surprised, but do wonder how it is that some women on the left have so totally fallen for / genuinely believe that GC feminists are as bad as those who supported Section 28 and lovingly repeat these inane and inaccurate statements.

Because if she does believe all of this it makes you wonder at her ability to seek out and assess information on topics.

Or is it just that crude left knee jerk way of working that you have to be seen to be on the side of the "most oppressed".

It is just so depressing to find out that so much of Parliament seems to be in the hands of people who quite honestly sound like they get their information from TikTok.

Could be a useful shorthand.

'He was standing there in full-on All Party Parliamentary Group mode'.

'Crispian is looking very All Party this evening'.

'Angelina is a big supporter of the Parliamentary Group way of spending time.'