Politicians respond to the SC judgement

[ArabellaScott]

A thread to gather politicians' responses to yesterday's Supreme Court judgement.

1. Stella Creasy. She's rather unhelpfully posted a pdf, (and turned off replies), so archive below.

https://archive.ph/8T1Yl

https://x.com/stellacreasy/status/1912609872430133697

The week at Westminster on Radio 4 covered this today. I only caught the tail end. Christine Jardine was on and seemed to be acknowledging that single sex spaces were a good thing.

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1915871291170590766?t=RDRHV5I03dmlejshOHs3eg&s=19

Link to Carla Denyer/Green Party.

So labour have 59 lgbt+ MPs out of 403. Just shy of 15% - it seems like alot.

Ed Davey on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg this morning was concerned that the judgement could mean that men will now say they are transmen to access womens single sex spaces.

I wonder what Ed's solution to this might be?

Carla Denyer clearly has no idea what the point of the Supreme Court is.

It's quite astonishing* how many Righteous folx have suddenly remembered the existence of female persons-of-gender since the SC ruling.

*Not astonishing in the slightest.

I think that it might be that in order to prevent men pretending to be women pretending to be men out of womens spaces we must accept men who pretend to be women in them

So Ed Davey wants women to provide to the solution to the problem that men have created. Ladies get back to the kitchen and be kind bollocks. Typical phallic drift and male privilege shite even from him.

Not sure this has been shared ye:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/4ee30927-3930-4007-96f7-0d9a9365c2e0?shareToken=b11f02f25c2b43059f04df5786628d36

This is the most disingenuous argument of the whole stupid debate.

As if it wasn't way easier for a man to pretend to be a trans woman than to pretend to be a trans man.

Do these politicians think the rest of us are as stupid as they obviously are?

I wish I had left the Lib Dems in the "irredeemable wankers" box I put them in after tuition fees and never given them a second chance. They certainly won't be getting a third.

Last year, for the first time ever, the Lib Dems came within touching distance of ousting the Tories in my constituency, and I refused to help them. I couldn't quite bring myself to vote for the Tory candidate, but I'm glad he won.

Just watched this myself

all i get from dh at the moment is ‘are you yelling at the television again’ 😀

its this assumption as well, that transmen have not been in the female toilets…absolutely some have and it hasn’t been a problem

As if it wasn't way easier for a man to pretend to be a trans woman than to pretend to be a trans man

we were absolutely told that a man with a beard, in jeans and a t shirt was a transwoman if they said so and we couldn’t police appearance

nothing has changed, in theory suited and booted dh could get into the female toilets by saying he is a transwoman and now a transman (i understand that the guidence has covered this gotcha)

I will quite happily accept that ‘bad men’ may pretend to be transmen and this may cause problems. I think it causes far fewer problems than the other way round, which is obviously that bad men may pretend to be transwomen.

The first reason it is preferable is in the instance that someone is pretending to be a transman, it can be objectively proved or disproved that this person is male. If they are male, then they shouldn’t be there. The law is on the side of women.

Whereas if transwomen are allowed in the female spaces, a man pretending to be a transwoman is objectively no different to a transwoman, and so is ‘allowed’ to be there.

This is so obvious I don’t know why politicians are confused.

But even if it isn’t, let’s consider another point of view.

20% of men are over 6 foot. Fewer than 1% of women are.

So no man over 6 foot would get away with ‘pretending to be a transman’.

So at a stroke you have reduced the bad actors by 20%. And given their size, they pose over 20% of the risk of that group.

That’s a superb example of this nonsense disappearing up its own backside. As a pp said, it’d be a man who claims to be a woman claiming to be a woman who claims to be a man. 😵‍💫

The ‘trans’ label is becoming more magical every day. A sort of ‘rights’-based Polyjuice Potion.

20% of men are over 6 foot. Fewer than 1% of women are.

And somehow they're all friends with people on TRSOH

This is so 'Victor, Victoria' - if anyone remembers the film.
Bonkers

I do know a couple of ladies who are 6ft. They're both still very clearly female.

Ed doesn't give a fuck about women.

He's not even pretending anymore.

Well quite. What I meant was the overlap of the groups ‘women who are over 6ft’ and ‘women who may be mistaken for being men’ would be a very small number of people.

How odd. He wasn't at all concerned about men accessing women's spaces by saying they were trans women. He thought that was the correct place for them. Is it the words these men utter that is the problem? Only one of them is the magic word?

Isn't it just?

Does he think we don't see him?!

Times story - Keir Starmer used to date the KC who investigated Alison Bailey - "a judge who was once accused of being influenced by the trans lobby"

https://archive.is/n1fcb

Nicola still refusing to comment on the ruling. Personally, I'd be happy to never hear a single word from her again but there are people who do:

https://www.thetimes.com/article/52af0e17-6343-4da4-a181-d4398e64fead?shareToken=ed805aa0b48ecaa9a18b0713e30e3be2

Roz Foyer of the STUC; 'I’m very clear that women do need to be protected in society from male violence, but the male violence most women experience happens in their homes, workplaces and communities and usually from men that they know.”'

So fuck any women who experience violence at the hands of strangers, or indeed transwomen, amirite Roz?

Plus, the SC judgement includes workplaces and communities and yes they may know the transwomen involved, so wtf is your point?!