Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Starmer tw don't have the right to use women only toilets

383 replies

lcakethereforeIam · 02/07/2024 00:58

It's a headline in the Telegraph. Unfortunately when I archive it it goes to an article about that twat Ashworth refusing to answer. So, I've screenshot the headline

Starmer tw don't have the right to use women only toilets
OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
FOJN · 02/07/2024 11:22

subtletyisntlostonme · 02/07/2024 06:26

This was my reply from my local candidate.

"Women only spaces" "single sex services"

I think underthinker is correct:

*I've always interpreted Starmer's remarks on this to mean he does believe in some female only spaces (where female does not include males with grcs) but those spaces are a very narrow set, and don't include places like toilets and changing rooms. Nothing here changes my view on that. I think the headline writer has inferred a meaning not intended by KS."

Thelnebriati · 02/07/2024 11:22

Any chance we can get him to leave the spousal exit clause in the Gender Recognition Act?

Keeptoiletssafe · 02/07/2024 11:23

The option this government came up with was to go with total privacy over safety. The existing standard single sex public toilet block have toilet cubicles with gaps top and bottom of the doors. None of the new designs from this October mention toilet door gaps. Two of the four are fully enclosed. One single sex design (for frail people) is illustrated with a full height door. The other is not specified. We now have the real possibility that people will be in acoustically sound, fully private little cubicles with full height doors and designed to be unlockable from the outside. The number of deaths, injuries and assaults in these cubicles will go up whilst hygiene (ventilation and inability to sanitise the floor) will go down.

Why didn’t the government consider disabilities, age (frailty), sex etc in the designs, because they would realise gaps in door doors are vital to see if someone has collapsed or prevent someone from being attacked?

Well they did commission a report into toilet design for people with long term health conditions and disabilities. There was no mention of heart conditions, epilepsy, diabetes, menorrhagia, asthma or discussion of other conditions that could lead to collapse. The evidence to support fully enclosing toilets literally boils down to this sentence: ‘A better solution, supported by many transactivists, and increasingly found in trendy nightclubs and restaurants, is to eliminate gender-segregated facilities entirely and treat the public restroom as one single open space with fully enclosed stalls.’

I hope future governments realise ‘solutions’ are only as good as the data that is being inputted into them. They need to make sure the reports they commission stick to their remit. As it is there has been no safety analysis on removing gaps from toilet designs.

Pupils have been the guinea pigs for similar designs in schools. It has not gone well - this sums it up:
“Kids would go in there to have sex, to drink alcohol. They’d push other kids in and lock themselves in with them. They’d block the drains and flood the corridor.” Another responded: “The toilets were really smelly and unpleasant. Because they were fully enclosed spaces they weren’t properly ventilated, and harder to clean.”
One teacher was worried someone could collapse unnoticed in a completely enclosed cubicle. They said: “The CCTV in the corridor was only any good retrospectively. The toilets had turn locks, so you could open them from the outside if you needed to, but you couldn’t hear through the door, couldn’t see whether there was one or two people in there, or if someone had collapsed.” (Walesonline 28.01.24)

To the next government: the answer is not to enclose toilets. Safety should come before privacy. And vulnerable people suffer most.

duc748 · 02/07/2024 11:23

It's worth reading the Reddit thread I linked.

I thought it was pretty horrific. There's no getting through to these people, is there?

EasternStandard · 02/07/2024 11:24

RoseUnder · 02/07/2024 11:15

Sadly facts are not very popular or influential these days

Social media has seen to that

Labour have seen to that with the GRA and what’s incoming

Boudiccaofsteel · 02/07/2024 11:25

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2024 10:52

When are we going to hear how men will be told not to even attempt entry to places where they are not wanted, with our without a penis, GRC or makeup and wig and a dress? When are we going to hear that men should be kind to other men?

Exactly. At this point this is all I want. Tell all men they aren't entitled to use women's spaces. Back up women when they say they feel uncomfortable with men in their space. Decent men do.

And tell men not to threaten hassle etc trans women and to accept them as males in their spaces and to broaden their concept of masculinity to include different fashion expressions: dresses, wigs, make up. A man is entirely free to dress as he pleases. In the men's Why is it always women that are told to accommodate men

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2024 11:26

And tell men not to threaten hassle etc trans women and to accept them as males in their spaces and to broaden their concept of masculinity to include different fashion expressions: dresses, wigs, make up. A man is entirely free to dress as he pleases. In the men's Why is it always women that are told to accommodate men

YY. But I don't think the majority use women's spaces because they feel threatened by men, to put it mildly.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2024 11:29

I thought it was pretty horrific. There's no getting through to these people, is there?

No. They are misogynistic to their core. Lots of frothing men saying fuck you a lot, and one #bekind, "why does it matter to anyone" woman from what I can see.

duc748 · 02/07/2024 11:34

Are we heading in the direction of a test case in the courts on 'GRC-holder demands access to female toilets', does anyone think? Is the law sufficiently unclear that that's a possibility?

ArabellaScott · 02/07/2024 11:37

duc748 · 02/07/2024 11:34

Are we heading in the direction of a test case in the courts on 'GRC-holder demands access to female toilets', does anyone think? Is the law sufficiently unclear that that's a possibility?

As some trans activists are pointing out, EHRC guidance states already that if a service is separated for men and women, people with a GRC should use according to 'gender' they identify with.

EasternStandard · 02/07/2024 11:37

duc748 · 02/07/2024 11:34

Are we heading in the direction of a test case in the courts on 'GRC-holder demands access to female toilets', does anyone think? Is the law sufficiently unclear that that's a possibility?

Idk what Starmer is aiming for other than to smooth his path to no 10

The day after nothing has changed and men with a GRC will use women’s toilets

So then what? What is he actually proposing. Nothing I’m guessing

So if he can lie about this so compellingly whilst people think he’s trustworthy I’d say that’s madness

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2024 11:37

The law is that unclear, yes. The test is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. But no one seems to think the privacy and dignity of women is a legitimate aim, or that it's proportionate to keep all men out regardless of claimed identity.

ArabellaScott · 02/07/2024 11:37

EHRC said that the government needed to clarify the rules. Hence the 'clarify the EA' proposition from the current gov. Which Labour have poo-poohed.

ArabellaScott · 02/07/2024 11:38

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/clarifying-definition-sex-equality-act

'On 21 February 2023, the Minister for Women and Equalities asked for our advice on the definition of the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010.
Section 11 of the Equality Act 2006 allows the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to advise the UK Government on the effectiveness of equality law.
The EHRC’s initial response to this request is set out in a letter sent to the Minister on 3 April 2023.
Baroness Falkner, Chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:
“A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others.
“Our response to the Minister’s request for advice suggests that the UK Government carefully identify and consider the potential implications of this change.
“Should they wish to pursue work in this area, we recommend detailed policy and legal analysis be undertaken, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
“There is a clear need to move the public debate on issues of sex and gender to a more informed and constructive basis. This would be welcomed by the many who do not take the polarised positions currently driving public debate.
“We look forward to working with the government and others to find a way forward on these important issues, but recognise that these decisions sit with the UK Government and UK Parliament.”'

Clarifying the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act | EHRC

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/clarifying-definition-sex-equality-act

lcakethereforeIam · 02/07/2024 11:39

@duc748 I think so, along with probably more dirty protests.

There was that employment tribunal in the NHS a tw made a bunch of unevidenced claims and won. The trust didn't appeal though so no precedent was set. I expect the trust got what they wanted through losing.

I worry they'll be more like that. The unions seem Stonewalled. I don't see much help from them for their female members.

OP posts:
Runor · 02/07/2024 11:39

RosesUnder I truly hope you are right, because Starmer will be PM on Friday, and his actions will determine our freedoms, not just for the next 5 years, but far longer than that.

The reason people call Starmer slippery is his failure to answer direct questions. Personally, I would love to know exactly what I’m voting for if I give my x to Labour. At the moment Starmer has espoused almost every possible stance on this issue, (intentionally I think) allowing space for a variety of interpretations. If that’s not slippery, I’m not sure what is?

Meanwhile Raynor et al are clear that TWAW, and Starmer has both facilitated Lloyd Russel-Moyle, and failed to support Rosie Duffield. I’m not sure how anyone can see this him being likely to defend women’s rights come Friday?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2024 11:42

EHRC said that the government needed to clarify the rules. Hence the 'clarify the EA' proposition from the current gov. Which Labour have poo-poohed.

This.

Datun · 02/07/2024 11:44

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2024 11:37

The law is that unclear, yes. The test is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. But no one seems to think the privacy and dignity of women is a legitimate aim, or that it's proportionate to keep all men out regardless of claimed identity.

This is the problem. ^

It's perfectly legal for men to enter women's spaces. That's why he can say transwomen don't have the automatic right. It's down to the discretion of the provider.

What they need to know is that the law is totally on their side if it's what their customers would like.

And they need to know that it IS what their customers want.

Which means more women need to be emboldened to say so.

Which is why the publicising of this in the papers, interviews etc is so important

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2024 11:45

Absolutely @Datun

GiveMeSpanakopita · 02/07/2024 11:47

The reason KS's statement is taking a while to provoke outrage is because he said it in the context of a wider newspaper interview which you'd have to read. Trans identified males don't read newspapers. To the extent that they 'read' anything, it's X and their favoured subreddits. It will therefore take a day or two for actual news to filter through their self-created narcissistic bubble.

To those PPs saying that KS is just saying this to win votes and will reverse when he gets in, I think we can be a bit more optimistic, for two reasons:

  1. KS is frickin BRUTAL in his desire for power. This is the guy who chucked the FORMER LEADER (Corbyn) and the Far Left's totem of glory (Abott) out of the party. He wrested control of the NEC out of the Corbynistas' hands in a blood soaked coup. He's hobbled Momentum to the extent that they've gone from leading the Labour debate in 2017-19 to a bunch of ignored cranks now. He's done all of this in, like, 4 years. Thatcher took three times as long as that to purge her party and get it to where she wanted it and even then she didn't manage it completely. And people clal her hard. Well if she's hard what does that make KS? fukkin ADAMANTINE.
  2. If KS throws women under the bus he'll lose in 2028. And he doesn't want to lose in 2028. He's said numerous times that his agenda is a two term one at least. Plus he knows that Kemi Badenoch is going to be the next Tory leader because the donors love her AND the grassroots love her which is highly unusual for the Tories. And he will struggle against her. Why make it worse.
ArabellaScott · 02/07/2024 11:51

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1dthx8m/starmer_getting_the_law_wrong_to_have_another_pop/

We have 'gammon faced freak' from the trans UK board.

ADAMANTINE is an interesting description. I've thought 'bread pudding' was more the mineral I'd associate with Starmer.*

But you're making it sound like he's some kind of hardcore mob godfather-type, Spanakopita.

Anyway, I don't mean to be rude. Just thinking of metaphorical qualities.

*may not be an actual mineral.

Boudiccaofsteel · 02/07/2024 11:53

Ereshkigalangcleg · 02/07/2024 11:26

And tell men not to threaten hassle etc trans women and to accept them as males in their spaces and to broaden their concept of masculinity to include different fashion expressions: dresses, wigs, make up. A man is entirely free to dress as he pleases. In the men's Why is it always women that are told to accommodate men

YY. But I don't think the majority use women's spaces because they feel threatened by men, to put it mildly.

Precisely. Has to be a space with a woman in it .. but that would flush out the true motive

GiveMeSpanakopita · 02/07/2024 11:57

ArabellaScott · 02/07/2024 11:51

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1dthx8m/starmer_getting_the_law_wrong_to_have_another_pop/

We have 'gammon faced freak' from the trans UK board.

ADAMANTINE is an interesting description. I've thought 'bread pudding' was more the mineral I'd associate with Starmer.*

But you're making it sound like he's some kind of hardcore mob godfather-type, Spanakopita.

Anyway, I don't mean to be rude. Just thinking of metaphorical qualities.

*may not be an actual mineral.

hahahaha no offence taken!

Based on the observable evidence of what he's done to refashion the Labour Party and pull his front bench into something resembling a line, in a very short amount of time? I'd say that makes him a mix of Ronnie Kray, Vito Genovese and Kazuo Taoka. Because the Corbynites basically took control of all the party structures, all of them, and that would've been hard to dismantle.

Remember 2018, when Labour public relations were basically being led by John 'Mao' McDonald, Seamus 'posh boy' Milne and Owen [insert fave epithet here] Jones?? They were on mainstream tv, columns, people took them seriously. Where are those three dudes now? Nothing more than the punchline of a joke no one can even be arsed to tell.

To achieve that turnaround in four years, you've got to be made of something a lot denser and harder than bread pudding. Even the 3,000 calorie Nigella version.

Chersfrozenface · 02/07/2024 11:59

I've thought 'bread pudding' was more the mineral I'd associate with Starmer.*

* may not be an actual mineral.

Talc is the softest mineral. "Used to make talcum powder and rubber lubricant", according to reliable sources.

lcakethereforeIam · 02/07/2024 12:01

There's a pudding stone, found in (amongst other places) Hertfordshire. It's a conglomerate <helpful>

OP posts: