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.

There is no specific criminal offence of using an opposite sex toilet however anyone using an opposite sex toilet could be arrested & charged with one of the usual catch-all offences like 'Behaviour likely to occasion a breach of the peace'.

They could alternatively be sued for harassment under the Equality Act 2010 but this would need to be by someone who had suffered a detriment e.g. a female present in the Ladies when the male intruded.

Is it actually illegal? I thought the understanding was it's illegal for the HoC to not provide single sex spaces

I'm no legal eagle, but I believe the Palace of Westminster has a special status in law. It's all down to the facts that the courts have no power over parliament. Whether that extends to health & safety etc may affect the situation.

Or not.

Why on earth do you feel that women should care about this man's feelings when he makes it very clear in every word and action that he does not care anything for women's?

Why do you feel women owe him this one-sided nurturing in the face of his abuse of them?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha x.com/tafkamacm/status/1933967400598384785?s=46

What a really appalling, premeditated and performative piece of anti social behaviour.

The medical problem - oh pull the other one, it's got bloody bells on it. How many other men with 'medical problems' are told by staff to go and use the women's in an emergency?

This is, under the law, a man like any other, who is entitled to NO additional privileges of power over women regardless of circumstance .

The whole putting staff - I'm sure they were women - in the difficult position of 'are you good girls who will tell me yes when I tell you I want to break women's boundaries and the law for my own jollies?' I mean it's not easy to look a large and reputably very difficult man in the face, and tell him no, knowing he will then kick off at you. Nasty. Really nasty of him. But absolutely typical of the misogyny he has repeatedly shown women whenever I've seen him post here.

The confirmation that a fully accessible toilet for him was the exact same distance as the women's - meaning of course he's using a whole lot of lying and manipulation to get what he wants, which is to destroy women's protections, rights and freedom from his presence when in a state of undress.

Mate, the consenting ones will be in the gender neutral facilities. Go and use them. Leave the non consenting ones alone. They do not want you, and they are legally entitled to get rid of you if you pester and invade them.

The bloody HoC falling for a man's games and saying 'they're waiting for guidance'..... while denying women their legal rights and protections from men behaving badly. This is shameful, it is appalling, I am absolutely SICK of people feeling happy to do this to women because they're not yet absolutely certain that it's ok to say no to boundary breaking men who want to abuse women for their own needs. The law is bloody clear. This is misogyny now. Blatant, ugly.

And involved in the WEC ..... light dawns. No wonder they are such an appalling shower as demonstrated at that meeting where they behaved so badly. Honestly, more would be expected of a bunch of school children, to at least have read and understood what they were talking about, and to have behaved to basic standards. But clearly they were told what to say by White and just went as his little parrots with no mind of their own getting in the way.

And since he does not understand the law or want anyone else to understand it either as he is hoping very much to destroy women's protections in law so that he can continue to make use of them to his own purposes, what good and useful little parrots they were. Why is someone who behaves this badly, openly, in public places, and has such an appalling attitude towards women being used as a consultant anyway?

Are you suggesting that members of parliament and their visitors are a danger to a man in the men's toilets?

Perhaps you have an example of this likely violence? Surely some vulnerable men have been beaten up in the men's loos if they're such a danger to a man the size of RMW - although I'd have thought that security would have dealt with such violent individuals and revoked their pass if so.

And the performance of 'poor little me, the nasty wims got cross'....

Nauseating.

This is exactly why I will not share a space where I am undressed and vulnerable with a manipulative and fantastically self-centred man intent on boundary breaking, with no respect whatsoever for women beyond what he wants to use them for.

And the mithering on about how “the women were shouting”.

Because presumably we should never raise our voices, never be cross, never be strident, never say no, eh?

Bad women, saying no and embarrasing him when he invaded their space and privacy and legal rights.

RMW was clear he kept his male voice as it was an advantage in the court room so he may just be surprised that women can speak louder than a genteel whisper

Just had the weirdest chime with the way some people blame Ukraine for not giving in to Russia ...

Fortunately, although the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 aren’t legally binding on the House, the Houses of Parliament Commission has agreed to apply the Act as if it were binding.

So yes, the Workplace Regs apply.

And it’s going to be very difficult to argue that the Workplace Regs consider sex to mean certified sex and not biological sex.

Perhaps there’s a certain barrister that might like to take his case to court and tidy that up for us?

I’ll also add this Michael Foran piece on the Workplace Regs:

https://knowingius.org/p/are-trans-inclusive-policies-lawful

TLDR; the meaning of “men” and “women” in the Workplace Regs relates to biological sex and employers must provide either communal facilities for changing, showering, and sanitary use on a separate basis for biological men and biological women, or unisex facilities which are for individual use. There are no other options.

I believe that RMW has said more than once that he does not have a GRC, so he doesn't even have the claim of 'certified sex' to rely on.

Hayton used to come here a lot and say single sex toilets aren't legal enforceable while working on policy ensuring that he could use the womens toilets at work.

Theres a difference between the risk of a criminal conviction and being kicked out of pubs and given warnings at work.

Its about following rules to make life better for everyone. If RMW can use the women's toilets unchallenged any man can, making it harder for women. Similarly, RMW could use the under 7s playground, but his presence would make it harder for 6 year olds to play safely.

We are just expecting RMW not to be an antisocial arse.

@illinivich’s post demonstrates a point I’ve regularly tried to make to those who argue for transwomen in women’s spaces. Where rights (or wants) collide, the path of least harm needs to be taken.

I’m sure RMW is of no physical risk to women in women’s spaces if he’s in there with them. I’ve seen nothing to say otherwise. But that is to ignore the mental harm done to women (however inadvertent or unintentional) who - for whatever reason, past experience, trauma etc - do not want to be around men in such places.

It also makes it much harder to keep out the men who ARE at risk of causing physical harm. How do you say no to one but not the other?

In both of those situations, the right of women to be and feel safe comes first. EVERY. DAMN. TIME. And a decent person would know and respect that.

He's built like 2 brick shithouses, how would he, of all males, not feel safe, @Promo981 ? It's never been about 'not feeling safe', as by many transwomen's own testimony they are perfectly safe in the males. So are gay men! It's about being validated by the women IN the facility. They want validation by being around women and using their facilities. It never, ever, ever, ever was about 'feeling safe'.

And we used to rely on social boundaries and good sense to not drink drive, until enough people were antisocial enough to require it to become a legally punishable offense.

It's the choice of the men involved really. But its plain that men such as this one have no good will, no capacity to care about anything but themselves, and are fundamentally against women's rights and equalities. And the government, being quite openly misogynist itself with a serious issue with women on many levels, is hemming and hawing in this ridiculous way because at heart, it agrees with him. Women are resources for men, and the uppity bitches shouldn't be allowed anything to hide behind that enables them to gatekeep their bodies from their betters.

Come on Starmer. Prove me wrong.

The whole tra is based on some sort of individual libertarianism, with absolutely no concern about what it does to society.

RMW decided what women spaces are for, therefore no one should stop him using them.

We all cant have our own definitions of what public spaces and services are and who they are for.

Unfortunately it is not individual libertarianism, because those 'rights' involve removing others rights. It is only the right of 'special' people to do whatever they want; this involves removing the rights and equalities of others because otherwise they say things like 'no'. And resist.

Frankly it's pathologically diagnosable. People with functional social and emotional development do not behave like this.

Not only has RMW shared his thoughts on this, it seems there’s a new acronym in town: the GCIM (gender critical ideology movement) <rolls eyes>

translucent.org.uk/parliamentary-altercation-highlights-crisis-in-trans-rights-post-sc-judgment/

It's quite sad, isn't it?

No, reality is not an 'ideology'. Gender woo most certainly is. One can be proven, the other is merely arrant nonsense being performed in hope of discrediting women who want men to stop bullying and abusing them.

Not catchy, would not use. 3/10

So many people obsessing over her using the bathroom for its intended purpose 🙄 Between that and the people forcing cis women into the men's toilets I'll bet predators are loving all of the attention being off them, leaving them to do whatever they like while everyone focuses on people trying to use bathrooms as intended.

The R from DARVO, the viewpoint that Gender Identity is a political ideology is gaining traction, so now they reverse the idea and make Gender Critical an ideology.
It shows how vacuous their viewpoint is, if it had merit it could make arguments based on them, if your entire case is based on stealing the viewpoint arguing against you and reversing it, you have no case to make.