Council worker tries to evict protesters from International Women’s Day event for saying ‘no woman has a penis’

[IwantToRetire]

“This building is a safe space for all on Friday and Saturday nights, [the] Public Sector Equality Duty requires us to foster good relations between all groups and this isn’t doing that I’m afraid, so I am going to have to ask you to leave.”

One of the delegates countered that the slogans on the leaflet were “statements of fact” or “objective reality”.

But Mr Allison said while he was not disputing anything on the leaflet, his role was to ensure the PSED was applied.

He said while the venue was advertised as a “safe space”, it was not for those who voiced “those opinions”.

Asked about freedom of speech, Mr Allison replied: “Freedom of speech is fine but as far as Darlington borough council is concerned freedom of speech doesn’t mean thoughtless speech and we have a duty under the Equality Act and unfortunately are going to have to ask you to leave because that doesn’t comply with what we do.”

Just part of a longer article about LWS NE(?) at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/09/international-womens-day-gender-critical-trans-darlington/
Which can be read in full at https://archive.is/D1abk

Thought this deserved its own thread rather than tagging onto LWS being banned in Hastings.

Because firstly it shows how effective a network of local women can be, but also the sheer gobbledygook local councils are now using to try and justify their anti sex based rights policies.

I'm afraid the gobbledegook is the law:

"The three aims of the general duty are to make sure that public authorities have due regard to the need to:

• put an end to unlawful behaviour that is banned by the Equality Act 2010, including discrimination, harassment and victimisation
• advance equal opportunities between people who have a protected characteristic and those who do not
• foster good relations between people who have a protected characteristic and those who do not"

Councils are legally required to work for community cohesion - although I do think the bit about "safe spaces" is gobbledegook!

Darlington.... mmmh 🤔

All of which apply to women as they are one of the protected characteristics ie sex.

Secondly, and surely everyone on FWR knows this by now, the belief that you can change sex is accepted as valid, and it is the obligation of employers, events organisers, etc., to ensure a balance between those who are gender critical and those who are TWAW.

Or do you belief that women are not part of the community.

Seriously to try and suggest that appeasing TRAs have more rights than women is hard to believe that in 2025 anyone is still brain washed by Stonewall's deliberate misinterpretation of the law.

And the council official showed he knew he was in the wrong and that Darlington have decided that women's sex based rights should not be mentioned for fear of the rabbid TRAs.

So, because that building is a drop in space between 9pm and 2am on Friday night and Saturday night, he was trying to argue that women with leaflets about biological sex shouldn’t be in the building in the middle of the day on IWD.

oops!

I typed: the belief that you can change sex is accepted as valid

Instead of: the belief that you can NOT change sex is accepted as valid

Must have made my comment a bit back to front sorry. Was a bit stunned to think anyone on FWR would think it is legal, let alone equitable that biological women should have to pretend you can change sex. Or at least keep quiet about questioning that fallacy.

I'm not saying the Council worker is correct in his interpretation- I'm just saying he's correctly quoting the law.

I think he's going for the idea that any kind of conflict between groups is unacceptable - in the same way that you wouldn't have vegans and taxidermists in the same place.

You are absolutely correct that sex is a protected characteristic too - I love the EA 10 but virtually everyone is covered one way or another and it's not always clear.

So am I, as a woman, "allowed" to have a penis?
I'll take two please.

So am I, as a woman, "allowed" a voice.

Not according to Darlington Council.

Wont be long before they are bringing back the scold's bridle.

How dare women not toe the line and dutifully intone TWAW, TWAW.

The impudence of thinking women's rights would be as important as men's.

--
A scold's bridle, sometimes called a witch's bridle, a gossip's bridle, a brank's bridle, or simply branks, was an instrument of punishment, as a form of public humiliation.

It was an iron muzzle in an iron framework that enclosed the head (although some bridles were masks that depicted suffering). A bridle-bit (or curb-plate), about 5 cm × 2.5 cm (2 in × 1 in) in size, was slid into the mouth and pressed down on top of the tongue, often with a spike on the tongue, as a compress.

It functioned to silence the wearer from speaking entirely, to prevent the women from nagging. The scold's bridle was used on women.

I was walking by an IWD protest on Sunday, and there was a total of zero signs saying “Smash the Patriarchy” or similar.

Plenty of signs about Gaza/Trans women/Climate Change/Omnicause. But none about women, other than a small separate demonstration against violence against women in Congo. Unfortunately for me the speech was in French so I have only a patchy understanding - but a very clear “30 years is too long”

Fostering good relations between groups of people should not involve choosing one of those groups and excluding the other, while both groups are behaving peacefully.

If one of those groups is not behaving peacefully, either through violence or threatening it, then perhaps excluding them would be reasonable, but 100% that should not be done because they are talking lawfully about things the person with the power to exclude disagrees with.

Fostering good relations would be to tell anyone objecting to the women’s presence that the women have a right to be there, and that if they are unhappy, they should either leave the women alone or go and peacefully discuss the reasons why they are unhappy.

Nobody ever takes this path with gender ideologists, which is why they now believe they have the right to talk over women, work themselves into rages when they cannot silence women and periodically become violent to women, because they have been taught by men like Mr Allison that they have the right to silence women, by whatever means they deem suitable.

@PriOn1 hit the nail on the head

Mr Allison needs to be reminded about taking turns. Sternly.

And he needs to fucking well understand… but it’s women so he doesn’t care.

Can't argue with that at all - you're spot on! A good, hard No many years ago would have probably sorted out a lot of these issues b4 they started.

I'm not disagreeing with the OP, I was just hoping to clarify the actual wording of the Act. As Pr1on's comment proves, there are clearly other and better ways of resolving the situation and adhering to the law.

One for every day wear and one for best?

Safe space used to mean all topics can be freely discussed provided it's done politely and non-violently.

Now it means the opposite - that some views are forbidden outright.

I'd rather debate with actual Nazis than put up with this.

Think of the Irving trial for instance. He was allowed to tell politically motivated lies about the Holocaust, Lipstadt was allowed to point it out, he was allowed to sue her for libel, we were all allowed to watch. Good clean public fun.

I see what you said.

Penises being penises, one to wash and one to wear.

Fostering good relations between groups of people should not involve choosing one of those groups and excluding the other, while both groups are behaving peacefully.

If one of those groups is not behaving peacefully, either through violence or threatening it, then perhaps excluding them would be reasonable, but 100% that should not be done because they are talking lawfully about things the person with the power to exclude disagrees with.

Fostering good relations would be to tell anyone objecting to the women’s presence that the women have a right to be there, and that if they are unhappy, they should either leave the women alone or go and peacefully discuss the reasons why they are unhappy.

Nobody ever takes this path with gender ideologists, which is why they now believe they have the right to talk over women, work themselves into rages when they cannot silence women and periodically become violent to women, because they have been taught by men like Mr Allison that they have the right to silence women, by whatever means they deem suitable.

This. And this was IWD, it's not about men or "trans rights". It's about women and girls, so if anyone should have been included it's feminists who centre women's rights.

One average size for week nights, one mega for weekends please!
Vibes can then go in the bin.

Yes have to clean both carefully!
Could just imagine visitors coming when they're both hanging on the washing line!

The more I think about this the more carried away I get. Just realised the "other" use of a penis. No more squatting?

umm… but why did you even bother? I mean if I were in the us I could quote your Miranda rights while trying to make a citizens arrest because you tried to enter a Walmart when I, as a passerby, didn’t like your hair, but the accurate legal statement would have no bearing on the situation and be irrelevant.

This.

Fostering good relations emphatically does not mean taking sides. He openly disagreed with what was on the leaflet, but then didn't want to be caught out saying why.

His contempt for the women could not have been clearer. Right down to sitting on the floor to prove he isn't aggressive. Which to me, not only still looks aggressive, but now looks like mockery.

And as other people have noted - number one, what is the point of saying it's a safe space, when it's outside the designated times?

And number two, he's saying these women make other people unsafe!

Go him for fostering good relations!!

It never ceases to amaze me that we've got to a day and age where people aren't allowed to state biological fact. Women do not have penises, transwomen might - but no one is saying they don't/can't/won't - so what's the issue? Why is the world so desperate to force women to pretend that transwomen are exactly the same as they are? It's all so bizarre.