What will happen when the EHRC Code of Practice is released?

[ItsCoolForCats]

And is approved by Parliament. More protests? More moobs on the streets? Will organisations follow the law now that they can no longer say they are waiting for the EHRC? Will we ever go back to 'normal'?

For the lurkers, here is the video that clearly shows KJK walking up the steps to embrace an ally before being assaulted by the male in question who came out of nowhere with the soup. There was no “sitting and talking” before the assault at all.

Bee seems to think it’s like Reddit, where people believe a load of nonsense, rather than, you know, actual facts with video evidence. The question is, is Bee the malevolent sort who spreads the lies to other Redditors, or the gullible sort who believes the lies of other Redditors?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P1QkXFHKCtM&pp=ygUXS2VsbHkgamVhbiBrZWVuIHNvdXAgbnrSBwkJwwkBhyohjO8%3D

The problem is that sex can't be replaced with gender in all instances, there have to be at least some exceptions. And hashing out those exceptions would be a catastrophic public debacle of the highest order. I very much doubt there is anything Starmer wants less to happen then that. Labour has nothing to gain from redrafting the EA and everything to loose. And if amending the EA is a non-starter, then there's no point in delaying the guidance, it delays putting this issue to bed as much before the next general election as possible.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I see you have come for your morning plop. Do you bring a newspaper with you?

EHRC guidance will be released. It will pass through Parliament. TRAs will continue tantrumming about lost rights without ever being able to specify what rights they are whining about. Men will continue to be arseholes are not respect women’s rights and boundaries.

Organisations will lose their dodgy excuse for not complying so when women inevitably complain and take legal action these organisations will have to fall into line with the law and statutory guidelines.

In 10-20 years, when thus particular social contagion isn’t the trend for kids anymore, society will try and pretend that none of this madness ever happened.

And you will still be a mansplaining , boring scold of a man.

This.

Tantrums.

Many many mantrums.

Calls for parliament to change the law which will be widely ignored apart from the fanatics. MPs won't touch it because they know it's toxic, unless they are in a city constituency and don't hold a government or shadow government position.

MPs who are sympathetic will continue to instead undermine the EHRC and the courts which is fundamentally dangerous ground. Anything but do their actual job.

So yet, just more of the same.

And I wouldn't be surprised by escalation and demonstrations of why males in female single spaces are not a good idea, with the protesters lacking any self aware and oblivious to how they prove the point women have been making all along.

It's burning out, but will not go down without drama is my feeling precisely because it's cultlike in nature.

Explain the morals involved?

Are single sex exemptions immoral to the transgender person?

Thank you for posting this, when I read the comment I knew it was wrong because I remember seeing the footage of a man throwing the soup. I couldn't have tracked it down though.
I another lie debunked but I'm assuming that there will be no acknowledgement of that from the poster.

I think it is rather the case that people will realise the world didn't end just because men couldn't use the women's facilities, and instead had an option of two others to use instead. It will become obvious that men who persist in violating female and social rules and boundaries are clearly wrong un's.

Meanwhile the general public will go back to wondering what all of the fuss was about and knowing that it is obvious that men shouldn't be intruding into women's intimate private spaces.

The main impact will be that it is re-established that one cannot change sex but that people can present in any way they like within the bounds of social decency. We will go back to referring to men transvestites and cross dressers or even as transsexuals for those that have had the 'full works'.

Nothing says "I believe in equality" more than telling everyone else that your beliefs are morally superior and you should be shamed/punished/otherwise beaten down as inferior for expressing those opinions and talking about material reality.

Your lack of self awareness helps us.

I another lie debunked but I'm assuming that there will be no acknowledgement of that from the poster.

Yes, not only debunked, but simultaneously, an admission that transwomen are violent and will attempt stealth in order to attack women.

I mean, as transactivation goes, it's pretty standard, of course. Shoot your own foot, being rule number one.

That's not what happened.
Seriously, you can't get away with rewriting things like that here as we've been watching this in real time for years.

Thank you Not Bad.

The dishonesty of some posters is very clear on threads and it means that we have to know where the original source information is to post every time.

Meanwhile the general public will go back to wondering what all of the fuss was about and knowing that it is obvious that men shouldn't be intruding into women's intimate private spaces.

yes, it's already happening, certainly for me. People commenting on the Supreme Court ruling, along the lines of, but of course, it was just stupid to think otherwise.

Without really quite grasping what it took women to get there.

I do wonder, because all those companies and public sector groups currently procrastinating and pretending they can’t act yet will have to find a new excuse.

I suspect the next one will be putting together working groups to discuss how the new rules can be put in place without harming the marginalized men.

There may also be procrastination on the grounds that they need time and funding to add the required mixed sex toilets that are the only possible compromise when the marginalized men are finally excluded from the women’s.

Operation: Let them speak!

Where each post becomes an admission. In one post we get dishonesty and violence.

Indeed. If you're gonna lie about something at least it should be making you look good, not like a violent woman hater. Who lies. 😁

The ECtHR will not touch a unanimous decision by a country's Supreme Court.

Whatever Jolyon tries to tell you and continue his grift with.

I suspect that some major organisations may have used the time fruitfully to check their legal situation and their insurance coverage.

But yes, those that can drag their feet no doubt will.

I hope though that there will be a flood of new organisational policies ready for release. Sadly I think I am too optimistic.

It is an endless round of how to deal with a group of men who want to use non consenting women, and for the law to stop those women escaping or being allowed to say things like 'no', or to refuse to take their clothes off, or to say anything off script.

That's absolutely going to wash with the general public and the court of human rights isn't it?

Insane.

The consenting women are going to have to do them.

There absolutely does need to be an investigation into how the ECHR became captured by Stonewall law and failed in their duties to represent the EA 2010 in the way it was written as opposed to what some TRAs wanted it to say. It’s a scandal.

I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a retrospective case?

Providers have been told to change their policies as soon as the ruling happened.

If women have to take them to court to force them to comply, can they claim that since they haven't been complying for X number of months, that all needs to be taken into account?

You really don’t like that females have rights.

Just like the verbiage that has been posted on a thread about how Sex Matters operates and how it should be stopped… ignoring the tactics and the actions of Stonewall which used the same tactics for years and based on a false interpretation of the law!

And of course Stonewall used those tactics because they are tactics and strategies known to be successful and lawful. That Stonewall based their policies and advice on falsity is unethical but the tactics and strategies are within the law.

And yet, we are expected to believe that Sex Matters is acting inappropriately, unlawfully and that they are guilty by association.

The hypocrisy and double standards are obvious. But each new thread seems to show lurkers quite the opposite to the intention. So I am keen that BeeS keeps up their fine work.

I am in a grim kind of way entertained however by the round of frantic burble to address it:

Men: get undressed in front of me/give me access to your body to pee beside/strip search/shower with/do intimate care/etc etc
Women: No. I don't consent.

-but all the other women are doing it!
-all the nice fashionable women are doing it!
-only old stupid ugly women say no and want rights
-no one else wants rights but you, you weirdo
-the law says men can do this to you and you're not allowed to say no
-the law WILL eventually say men can do this to you and you're not allowed to say no so you might as well do it
-saying no is hate and evil and you're a nazi
-your reasons are rubbish and mine aren't
-here's some article or other made up by other men who want women to do it proving that women are happier when they do it
-feminism is absolutely all and only about providing men with your body
-I'm going to do it to you anyway
-do it or I'll pee/take my top off

That is very clear.

I suspect there will be some gross misconduct cases when someone starts not following the rules.

Companies will rapidly get sick of the drama because it costs them time and money.

The bubble is bursting on the marketing. We know this. It's been a disaster for a number of companies.

Other companies who still think it's trendy will change tune, when it starts hitting them in the pocket in other ways.