Should trans people have fewer rights? ‘Not in our name’, say over 35,000 women

[BeeSouriante]

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/society/should-trans-people-have-fewer-rights-not-in-our-name-say-over-35000-women/

Actually 36,000 now. Heartening to see in these horrible times. It's always wonderful when you see people come out to stand in solidarity against the manufactured anti-trans panic.

As a pp said earlier today, where are all the transmen?

You never hear from the few there are, because they are just getting on with their lives and minding their business. Never demanding to enter the private, safe spaces of men.

You only hear demands from transwomen. You hear all the demands to be treated the same as women, and to be able to enter all the safe spaces women occupy.

Funny that isn't it @BeeSouriante Dontcha think?

Horrible times?

What? The Russian invasion of Ukraine? War between Palestine and Israel? Sudanese civil war? Cost of living crisis? Barbaric treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan?

Very good point.

So 0.05% of the population. Yep, very convincing…..

Once more, from YouGov, for those of you who haven't seen it:

'Scepticism towards transgender rights has grown across the board since 2022'
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425

Of course 'transgender rights', in YouGov parlance, includes those which directly reduce women's and children's rights

Is she related to Mark Kermode the film critic on Radio 5?

I think she’s busy defending the ‘trans inclusive’ training she’s provided to organisations over the years.

All these threads are getting tiring. Bee 🐝 is spamming FWR for a reaction. Tiresome.

anti-trans panic?

Or is it that women are genuinely concerned that the erosion of their rights and dignities in favour of male demands. Oh and concerns about inadvisable and dangerous medical interventions on children.

Which one sounds more likely?

Some people really hate being told no.

Let’s have a referendum then, rather than some biased people signing a pointless petition.

I'd like to see that referendum. I think Bee would be in for a shock 😁

How are you going to prove that all the people who signed that petition are actual women? Literally anyone can sign it. As many times as they have email addresses.

That decision led to the issuing of guidance by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) which was then withdrawn after an intervention by the Good Law Project

What's this about the GLP? I spotted it mentioned on Reddit, but this development seems to have passed me by

It's a nothing. Jolyon desperately trying to keep his grift going.

Trans people don't have fewer rights.
What has happened is that blocks have been put is place to prevent them from taking away other people's rights.

Ah, I've just read the article. It claims instead of single sex, workplaces can have have mixed sex fully enclosed cubicles.
Well even if that is the case, it's still not the victory many are claiming. That the EHRC have backtracked and TIM can use the ladies again.

Just that no one gets to have single sex anymore. Wonderful what a win!
Reads like a spiteful individual whining 'If can't have it then no one can!'

That’s always been the case, and it was in the original EHRC interim update, you just needed to read and understand it (easy enough to check the Workplace Regs and ACOP too).

So no, the EHRC has not backtracked and the GLP is being economical with the truth.

Wow powerful 👏

Yes, it was an unfortunate that the Guidance left itself open to the accusation of 'getting it wrong', but that particular bit did not refer to the central issue of the SC ruling - which, despite all the toilet-related outrage, was not about who should pee where!

The article linked to in the OP, and the one in The National have both taken a minor point and blown it up to suggest that the entire EHRC guidance was wrong, was admitted to be wrong, and had been withdrawn.

If you read the totality of regulations - not just the Equality Act - it is clear that the
'gold standard' is separate sex toilets, with unisex toilets permissible in some circumstances. People planning or managing public buildings are not only bound by the Equality Act - there are building regs, workplace regs, health and safety regs, which are much more relevant to the rules about toilet provision.

The SC ruling was about the definition of sex, not about the provision of toilets in buildings. Nothing in the EHRC Guidance contradicted the ruling.

Causing confusion is the TRA modus operandi!

@MarieDeGournay The article linked to in the OP, and the one in The National have both taken a minor point and blown it up to suggest that the entire EHRC guidance was wrong, was admitted to be wrong, and had been withdrawn.

It's infuriating the amount of false 'news'/absolute shite, I'm seeing published by TRA wrt these matters.

I mean these things are easily debunked but many readers/viewers won't bother with any fact-checking and will just take it on face -value and repeat as truth

I’ve noticed a few articles where it seems men wearing dresses are now trying to align themselves to women’s rights which is pretty sneaky. They tried to link themselves to Black Lives Matter too. It’s part of the Dentons playbook - align yourself with another popular cause and sneak in that way.
If they do manage to appear to be fighting for ‘all women’s rights’ I imagine they will then try and turn the majority of women against ‘terfs’ and frame it that terfs are nasty, and aggressive and against women for their own evil ends. Probably because they are middle aged and shouty and ugly and therefore resentful of lovely pretty women.
what does anyone else think?

Oh, they're doing that already.

Also criticising GCs for "reducing everything to sex", saying "Sufragettes fought for women not to be defined by their sex", that they're just thinking of the poor wimmins who will be affected by being a bit butch, etc etc.

But we see them.