Christine Jardine MP: Ensure rights that trans people have freely used for decades are not overturned

[SidewaysOtter]

Lib Dem spokesperson for Women and Equalities. Guess she doesn’t care so much about the “women” part of that title, eh? 🙄

A Lib Dem MP proposing to ignore the law.
What a clown

Ugh. She’s my MP, I was planning to write to her but I suppose I know the response I will get now.

Im shocked it’s taken the Lib Dem’s this long! I mean can you imagine the belcher led tantruming that’s going on?

So she wants to remove all rights from women and enshrine in law that we are nothing more than validation tools for men. Nice that but remember the lib dems believe that there are only men and non men so we non men shouldn't complain about other non men using our spaces

They are protected by the Equality laws. Media and feelings are not the law - under which they still have protections.

😂

Write to her anyway. She's meant to represent her constituents, and I believe too many of them have zero idea of their constituents pov.

Oh yes, I’d forgotten about him.

The Mr Belcher who seems to think that there will be “subsequent cases”. On what grounds, sunshine?

Maybe reply this

I wonder which rights trans people have freely used for decades that don't go against recognition of respecting single biological sex provision she is specifically talking about, until that is clarified surely this letter is just meaningless?
Trans people have the same legal rights they have always had don't they?

Write anyway. The more people write and disagree with her the better.

Yo can point out that the “rights” she speaks of aren’t lawful, and that she as a MP should be upholding the rule of law.

I just don't get the argument of 'they've been doing it for ages so it's ok'. Can you imagine an MP arguing that people have been shoplifting for years without being caught so they should be allowed to continue and shopkeepers should just put up with it!? It's ridiculous and makes no sense.
The law needed to be clarified precisely because people like this misrepresenting it!

I was under the impression that little treat came from the Greens.

@MrsFinkelstein@borntobequietOh I definitely will, it’s just disheartening to know it’s still going to reach deaf ears like the previous emails I’ve sent. I was a little hopeful this time after a more positive response from a local councillor recently.

The rights they have freely used for decades, which trample over everybody else's rights. The SC have simply clarified that we are not required to allow trans-IDd people to trample over the rights of others. There has been no rabble-rousing or fear-mongering in the press AFAIAA. That has all come from the TRAs and MRAs.

The rights of all transpeople born female are unaffected.
Those born male haven't lost any rights because this ruling makes clear that they didn't have the 'rights' they had presumed.
Despite all the heat around this decision, whilst I get that this blows a hole in the ability for men to self ID (or GRC) into single sex spaces, truly single sex spaces are very specific and for reasonable purposes. Toilets keep being mentioned - but other than holding businesses and organisations to task about providing legal and adequate toilets for everyone, I can't see toilets being policed. Although it will give women more confidence in challenging someone who shouldn't be there.
The privacy and dignity of the majority user has prevailed.
The Govt shouldn't try and override that. All parties must respect the rule of law.
If there are gaps in provision for transwomen then that should be addressed.
This ruling puts to rest the debate over what is a woman. Now we need to get on with living harmoniously alongside each other.

Debatable whether the rights they have freely used for decades ever existed in the first place. Adverse possession: if abusive behaviour goes on for long enough, does it establish a right to abuse?

People who have unlawfully been given access to single sex spaces at the expense of women's human rights of privacy and dignity are not my problem to accommodate at the expense of my legally recognised rights.

This is a matter of explaining this, to trans people that they are not the centre of the entire universe and the equality act is about balancing needs.

The rights of transgender people themselves are unmined and lost without the ability to see sex in law. It would affect their rights to equal health care for starters. They don't cease to have a sex, when they transition. Being transgender is an additional protected characteristic not a replacement for sex.

What is needed is clarification on what alternative measures are necessary by organisation and commercial companies to provide privacy and dignity for all. This includes recognising that abandoning single sex provision and making it mixed sex, excludes certain religious minorities and certain groups of vulnerable women so is not an acceptable solution.

You know because equality and other people having rights. Not just trans people.

Fuckwits who continue to indulge this hierarchical nonsense where trans people can not see anyone but themselves need to belt up. Especially if they are in positions of responsibility like an MP.

The LDs clearly have a long way to go before they get it. You'd have thought that reading the judgement would be a good start, but it seems this is too much like hard work for Christine who has simply decided to take the rhetoric that they've lost something that was never theirs in the first place, at face value. This is poor and lazy from an MP. There's nothing to stop her from offering reassurance and asking the right questions rather than trying to inflamed the situation.

She's irresponsible at best. At worst she's provocative.

So she's actually campaigning for rapists to be put in female prison with vulnerable women? Men running rape crisis centres? Female Nurses being forced to undress in front of male doctors? NO

What a numpty. Decades ago there might have been one male in a community who openly cross-dressed and if the women of the area perceived him as harmless, or if they thought it was less risky, they may have turned a blind eye if he used the women's toilets. If he'd attempted to join the Women's Institute or if a teenage boy had tried to join the Guides or the girls' netball team, he'd have got short shrift. If a cross-dressing father had announced that he was breastfeeding his baby social services would have been involved.

The sea change in attitudes has been very recent indeed. Ms Jardine should do a bit of background reading.

This is so clear. I feel like all of us with LD MPs could use this as a template to write to them. Any MPs, actually.

Bridget Phillipson was just on R4 and confirmed that she spoke for the government and was clear that the ruling on EA means trans women should be using single sex services on the basis of biological sex. I was pretty surprised she was so clear.
3rd spaces seems to be the only workable solution.

She's now on Good Morning Britain

That is a massive relief. Was it the long 8.10 interview or a shorter slot? Did she say anything else noteworthy?

Is she being asked why Keir Starmer is yet to say anything?