House of Commons apologises after RMW permitted to use ladies' loos

[SidewaysOtter]

https://www.thetimes.com/article/e3c3967f-8712-4591-9897-fe04588000ca?shareToken=5ffa7fb5239ea83f779908352e494c14

RMW claims he had never been challenged on his use of women's loos before - well, now he has, and the HoC has acknowledged it was wrong to allow him into those facilities.

I am not sure that there is any need or danger or even evidenced actual harm to others that would be regarded as remotely relevant when it would impede the desired experience. This is largely the problem. It's not a balanced position and rationality cannot liaise with it.

No, right first time.

Somatic symptoms aren’t fabricated symptoms, they are real in that they are truly felt/ experienced. Whilst they don’t arise from the body, they can subsequently
influence brain chemistry, shift hormone levels, activate the nervous system, and impact long-term physical health. Chronic stress leading to high blood pressure or weakened immunity is an example.

I accept that RMW’s gender distress is a somatic symptom - one caused by psychological and social factors. I hope these symptoms have been alleviated by the treatment he received (hormones and surgeries).

However, the aim of treatment is to reduce symptoms, not to reclassify someone as the opposite sex.

RMW claimed to be "somatically female", not that he was suffering from somatic symptoms. He thinks this claim means that he should be reclassified as a woman.

Frankly, it sounds like a condition that could be described as a disablity. This guy needs help, not the ladies.

Oh! Does this the next iteration from phenotypically female? Or was that IW.

Earlier in the year I hosted a debate about whether a male can became phenotypically female. The debate ended with recognising this as a moot point because the only context in which this mattered was single sex provision and that any male accessing it, whatever their sex phenotype, rendered it a mixed sex provision.

I won’t host another one relating to being ‘somatically female’.

Perhaps they meant "semantically female"

Or, in most cases "Sementically female" ?

Do keep up at the back.

It is a peculiarly male thing to think women's reality should be organised around whatever that man tells them is happening between his ears at the time. I don't care about a man's self definitions and all other parts of the wonderful magical mystery tour all around the wonders of him.

I don't want him or any other men in women's spaces with me. It's that simple. The self obsessed ones even more so than the other ones.

Remember Robin is a lawyer and careful with words.

"Being signposted" is I suspect an obfuscation. Maybe they asked for the loos in general, or where the ladies were specifically or even just entered the corridor and were pointed that way.

Even if they weren't specifically challenged by staff they know their biological sex and have a personal responsibility to use the correct toilets.

If Robin was desperate, asked for the loos and was directed into the ladies without specifically asking that would be stated. So didn't happen.

I hope they receive a formal written warning that if they breach these rules again they will no longer be allowed entry. And reminded that there are gender neutral facilities.

I hope they receive a formal written warning that if they breach these rules again they will no longer be allowed entry. And reminded that there are gender neutral facilities.

Well, he certainly can't claim any more that he's never been challenged, and now the rules have been clarified he can't claim that there's any ambiguity about which facilities he should be using in future, either.

I suspect Robin might argue that they only had to leave because an evil terf objected and that doesn't normally happen.

Noting also their prior quote "service providers and those who provide workplaces don't have a duty to police facilities..."

I doubt HofC will send them a letter but they should do. To be on firmer legal ground (am not a lawyer) that they know the rules and that these will be enforced if needed.

Here's Robin on TV explaining that he's 'somatically female'.

Does anyone know if he was ever married?

Yes, he was, but no children.

Perfectly put.

According to Reddit lots of transsexual males made a point of using the female toilets during the lobbying event at Westminster Hall yesterday. There is a claim that a female cleaner was positioned to spy on them.

Nearly all of the Reddit bunch have swallowed the GLP guff about the EHRC rowing back on workplace facilities too. Anyone sane pointing out that this isn’t the case, it’s just a rewording of the interim guidance to make it more clear, is being laughed at whilst the hard of thinking pledge more cash to the GLP to carry on the good work.

I don’t think any of them read the EHRC’s response to the GLP’s letter before action, which pointed out the GLP’s sleight of hand.

I feel for them being duped like this. There’s much better things they could be spending their money on.

I don't. A fool and their money are soon parted.

They’ve had years and years when they could have been lobbying for unisex facilities to be provided in addition to single sex ones. But they didn’t want that (hmmm, wonder why). Now they’re be told they can’t use the ladies they’re complaining that there aren’t enough unisex facilities. 🤷‍♀️

I do too. They've had years of being told they're victims, they're at risk of suicide, they're at risk of genocide, that TERFs want to erase them, so they seem to genuinely see GLP's grift case as some kind of last ditch attempt at being saved. Some of them genuinely seem terrified of what will happen to them if they're not allowed to act as the opposite sex.

They will discover that they and everyone else will survive the experience just fine.

The EHRC cannot change the law, the Supreme Court have clarified the law, game over. Men's attempts to take over women and their spaces has failed.

I presume he thought he ‘passed’ on previous occasions and that that is some kind of gotcha but is actually as creepy AF

There's one TRA on reddit who's clearly saying that the SC and the EHRC are following the law as written and to change anything, parliament will have to rewrite the law.

He's not being ignored or down voted, but many just cant get their heads around it. They just dont believe SSE apply to them or that toilets were ever part of SSE.

I think they believe EHRC went too far because toilets aren't id checked and its not a criminal act to use the wrong loos. In a way politicians didnt help by talking about SSE as safe spaces or rape crisis centres. Few referred to toilets as single sex.

So jolyon is giving them a path they understand? They want a time the old ones tell them about when women welcomed tw into the toilets. Even though the men who are telling them this didn't transition until 2017, or they are talking about toilets in gay clubs.