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.

Yep. The gig is well and truly up.

This is how women have been forced to feel for the past decade-and-a-half. The response to us was simply 'cede over your rights, budge up and shut up'. Oh, and 'reframe your trauma'.

Forgive me if my field of fucks is completely barren.

I'd like to thank the women who stood up to him. Sheroes.

Kate and Heather are usually so shrill, I can't believe they turned so quickly to being shouty!

What he means of course is 'they were saying words'.

As this is in the Times, I take it he won't be able to force MN to take this down like he did the last thread about him?

Oh hasn't Robin been clever - what fun he's had! He's made sure to attend on a day when he knows he's likely to be challenged or cause upset. He's asked the staff each time (unnecessarily) so that he can say "the staff told me to go there" and he has a 'get out of jail' medical requirement card to back him up just in case.

Nope and the fact he's a lawyer, and therefore - one would think - would be especially keen to follow the law, makes it even worse.

So no Muslim women or other women of faith whose religion requires single sex spaces in parliament that day (or any other women who have reasons they can't used mixed sex spaces) would have anywhere to pee because this bloke just decided he wanted to use the woman's despite having 3 other toilets to choose from (Gender neutral, men's, disabled if his disability is real and not self ID).

So effectively excluding all these many many women from attending the women and equalities committee.

It's just abusive DARVO on steroids.

Indeed.

And it's partly this manipulation and sneakiness which makes them absolutely unwanted in our spaces.

Keep out!!

Creepy, knowingly slithering into the women’s knowing FULL WELL HE NEEDS TO STOP DOING THAT.

It’s fun that we can call it out now though. Bet it boils their piss!

It also shows that all the employees in parliament are pretty lacking in diversity - because it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to be able to figure out that by making the 'women's' toilets mixed sex you're excluding a whole load of women - women of faith and many vulnerable groups of women too. What's the point of the taxpayer funding 'gender neutral' toilets if you just allow men into the women's?

I do think this is an interesting but not unexpected development.

The SC ruling means employers, service providers etc. need to be clear what facilities they provide and who can use them. Signs on the facilities must also be is clear.

From the article, and memory, Portcullis House has clearly signed toilets by sex e.g. women’s and men’s s, plus gender neutral/unisex disabled toilets and changing places facilities. This makes them legally compliant.

I expect RMW actually asked where are the “toilets” rather than the “women’s toilets” and so was directed to the toilets which probably have the men’s and women’s close together.

It is for RMW to respect the law and use either the men’s or the disabled gender neutral facilities. If, as per the article, RMW has an urgent need for the toilets using the gender neutral disabled toilets is appropriate on those grounds alone.

The SC was not suggest employers or service providers “police” access. What they are expecting is that societal norms will make it unacceptable for TW to use women’s toilets.

RMW is looking for an argument they can take to court to claim discrimination. I suspect other TRAs will be doing similar.

The SC has given women the right to challenge but it must be done politely and safely. Which, from the article, that is what happened.

Smoking is a good example of how societal norms changed. Over time an increase in gender neutral facilities and the mantra “good men stay out so bad men stand out” will see it become more and more unacceptable for TW to use women’s facilities.

The planets aligned perfectly - RMW, at the WEC, listening to the SC judgment being discussed, and being called out by women from ‘trans hate group’ LGBA.

You couldn’t make it up.

Harris said a member of Commons staff then told her “we don’t do that here” in reference to excluding trans women from the female loos."

Will this staff member be sent on a retraining course regarding the law and women's rights? Will any of them?

This.

Helen Joyce has confirmed “there is a unisex loo precisely the same distance from the committee room where this hearing was held as the ladies' is”

So he can’t even use his medical condition as an excuse for needing to use the closest toilet. Not that that would be acceptable anyway.

x.com/hjoycegender/status/1933933335467757856?s=46

Well maybe not so clever after all. Not only do we have an apology for facilitating his use of the wrong toilets but lots of people know about the apology and will be less keen to enable him in future.

I am sorry to hear RMW has a medical condition and it's good to know for next time that there are suitable facilities within easy reach.

And well done Kate and Heather.

Bet the medical condition has nothing to do with his period being very heavy.

Well, it might, because apparently a male judge can get pregnant if not using contraception. Anything can happen in the topsy turvy world that is genderism.

Sent there….
He knows bloody well where the loos are. I imagine the “Can you direct me to the Ladies?” is all part of the thrill.
Wanker.

I bet he’s not so cocky (excuse the pun) now about using female facilities.

Well done Kate and Heather. This sends a message that there are women out there prepared to point out the law to those that insist on breaking it.

I agree, they need mandatory re-education, or de-programming as it were.

It just goes to show that people would have challenged RMW if they'd felt safe to do so, and not that RMW wasn't challenged because of passing privilege.

And given RMW has already stated that law breaking is something that they plan to continue doing, I hope it happens more and more.

Yeah, I didn’t believe that either! RMW really must think people are very stupid.

Isn't stating loudly you intend to break the law repeatedly a cause for being disbarred if you're a lawyer?

If it's not, it should be.

RMW's actions are
a) illegal
b) harmful to many women
c) exclusionary of a large number of women and likely to make large numbers of women self-exclude from the democratic process and public life.

He knows all this of course.

Parliamentary staff enabling this means Parliament is discriminating against women on grounds of sex and religion / belief. I wonder if any of the women there might consider a court case. Presumably the knowledge that they have broken the law is why they issued an apology.

You'd think.

But apparently not if you are special.

But surely even a male can’t get pregnant if they’ve reached menopause? 🤔