Page 4 | Islington Council slams 'botched' single sex spaces guidance

DialSquare · 03/07/2025 22:07

AidaP in the men’s toilets.

BellissimoGecko · 03/07/2025 22:09

AidaP · 03/07/2025 20:43

This feels like it needs a short history lesson.

Transgender people always existed, with varying level of recognition in the law depending on time and space, from annihilation to just another person. We managed to exist in either of those environments.

In UK, even in depth of section 28, we continued to exist and live in out transition just fine, the only variable is amount of harassment we have to endure that's endorsed by the law.

And you think that completely unenforceable law (under which it's impossible to prove that you are cis btw), with no punitive measures, is going to somehow make transgender people to decide "yep, you right, we will give in to the few loud transphobes and stop existing as ourselves?"

You live in lala land, not reality, if you think that.

And the law on top of everything is temporary, the reading you want of FWS puts us entirely in the same position which resulted in Goodwin, and creation of trans rights. Except now there is even more precedence in ECHR for us.

See ya in the loos that apparently bother you so much.

Show quote history

What a load of nonsense. The SC ruling was to clarify the meaning of the EA2010, which TRAs such as Stonewall have deliberately misconstrued and lied about.

Women deserve and are legally entitled to our own sports, prisons, refuges and loos without men, however they identify.

You are a man. Deal with it. Leave women alone.

nutmeg7 · 03/07/2025 22:10

AidaP · 03/07/2025 20:43

This feels like it needs a short history lesson.

Transgender people always existed, with varying level of recognition in the law depending on time and space, from annihilation to just another person. We managed to exist in either of those environments.

In UK, even in depth of section 28, we continued to exist and live in out transition just fine, the only variable is amount of harassment we have to endure that's endorsed by the law.

And you think that completely unenforceable law (under which it's impossible to prove that you are cis btw), with no punitive measures, is going to somehow make transgender people to decide "yep, you right, we will give in to the few loud transphobes and stop existing as ourselves?"

You live in lala land, not reality, if you think that.

And the law on top of everything is temporary, the reading you want of FWS puts us entirely in the same position which resulted in Goodwin, and creation of trans rights. Except now there is even more precedence in ECHR for us.

See ya in the loos that apparently bother you so much.

Show quote history

"see you in the toilets" said the male person to the women.
Nice.

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 03/07/2025 22:10

I see i got deleted.

Can I say instead that 'no one wants to see your genitals'?

Is that OK?

Because that's what is 'kindly' being offered. And we don't.

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 03/07/2025 22:11

nutmeg7 · 03/07/2025 22:10

"see you in the toilets" said the male person to the women.
Nice.

Show quote history

Not at all threatening 🙄

Cornishpotato · 03/07/2025 22:11

Islington can have special queues at reception for "cis people" to "prove they are cis". Will that help?

Sally Hines can be on speed dial to call for explanations to receptionists (if she's sober of course, or thinking about it wine might help)) and once proven all will be fine.

I bet every "cis person" has a different explanation.

The rest of the world knows where to go.

BellissimoGecko · 03/07/2025 22:13

AidaP · 03/07/2025 20:53

To a point I do indeed, as despite transphobic government and FWS, transgender people continue to live happy lives in the real world, with massive support from the population showing at the rallies, protests, parades and so on, while transphobes keep hiding their views due to backlash and alienation, and still cannot crack 100 person rally, something we get at a 2 day notice counter-protest, and it's mostly cis people there.

And all that while under constant barrage of anti-trans mass media on top.

Show quote history

Why do you think it’s transphobic for organisations and people to stand up for women’s rights?

It’s not. And it’s deeply misogynistic to suggest it is.

Ursulla · 03/07/2025 22:13

AidaP · 03/07/2025 20:29

Can you explain how? Because as trans woman my documents state F. Do I need to lift my skirt? Or is this based on the "we can always tell" that gets tons of cis women misgendered on the regular?

Show quote history

No. Please don't lift your skirt.

Cornishpotato · 03/07/2025 22:22

AidaP · 03/07/2025 20:53

To a point I do indeed, as despite transphobic government and FWS, transgender people continue to live happy lives in the real world, with massive support from the population showing at the rallies, protests, parades and so on, while transphobes keep hiding their views due to backlash and alienation, and still cannot crack 100 person rally, something we get at a 2 day notice counter-protest, and it's mostly cis people there.

And all that while under constant barrage of anti-trans mass media on top.

Show quote history

Rallies!

Dear me. Like anyone gives a shit about rallies.

Especially ones attended by the overwrought "cis people".

WithSilverBells · 03/07/2025 22:23

If you stepped out of an echo chamber and put some critical effort into the data coming in, your perception would shit. I welcome you to come to some of the more open trans meetups and meet the people there.

Apart from the unfortunate spelling mistake, I wonder if this is another plea to focus on the 'genuine' transsexuals and discard the rest of the trans umbrella.

In addition to which we have the quoting of Goodwin:
...if confined to the case of fully achieved and post-operative transsexuals.

Are we being asked to focus on a very particular subsection of transsexuals? Is the hope that there will be an exception made for post-operative transsexuals? In which case I can't see how the ECtHR will help since it was that very body that stated that making sterilisation surgery or treatment a condition of a GRC amounted to a violation of article 8.

Still, IANAL 🍿

nutmeg7 · 03/07/2025 22:23

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 03/07/2025 22:11

Not at all threatening 🙄

Show quote history

And sneering about “loos that bother you so much” with zero comprehension about why that might be.

No understanding of actual women and too busy with his own fantasy of being a woman. Actual female women who want our own spaces seem like we are just an irritation to this sort of self obsessed person.

Leafstamp · 03/07/2025 22:24

I’m glad Mr P, aka “Aida” has graced us with his presence here. Perfectly illustrating that he does not care about women or their right to privacy and dignity granted by law.

Many lurkers will only be further convinced that it’s a men’s rights movement.

Justwrong68 · 03/07/2025 22:28

AidaP · 03/07/2025 21:06

It's funny how you all opposte things without realizing that the arguments you are trying to make are copy/paste from the 90's that were made in support of Section 28, which was strong ban on gays, lesbians, intersex and transgender people. Literally people were "not comfortable" with having gays and lesbians in their bathrooms.

And all of this was settled, over 20 years ago, if you dare to actually read some law, indulge me in this little quote that addresses your issue:

"""
The Court does not underestimate the difficulties posed or the important repercussions which any major change in the system will inevitably have, not only in the field of birth registration, but also in the areas of access to records, family law, affiliation, inheritance, criminal justice, employment, social security and insurance. However, as is made clear by the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group, these problems are far from insuperable, to the extent that the Working Group felt able to propose as one of the options full legal recognition of the new gender, subject to certain criteria and procedures. As Lord Justice Thorpe observed in the Bellinger case, any “spectral difficulties”, particularly in the field of family law, are both manageable and acceptable if confined to the case of fully achieved and post-operative transsexuals. Nor is the Court convinced by arguments that allowing the applicant to fall under the rules applicable to women, which would also change the date of eligibility for her state pension, would cause any injustice to others in the national insurance and state pension systems as alleged by the Government. No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transsexuals and, as regards other possible consequences, the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.
"""

This is still valid and applicable law, one that now will have to be tried against FWS to see what the law actually is. But that's level of consideration this echo chamber hates, as for them "it's all so clear", a position not held by any actual legal scholar. Even EHRC already had to retract half of it's guidance as, by it's own counsel, they got the law wrong.

You lot have been lied to, I'm sorry to say, especially about FWS being "clear" or it banning bathrooms.

Show quote history

That’s not what section 28 was at all. I’m guessing you weren’t there and put your trust in chat got. Once again you’ve made it about you; fact is we’ve never wanted men in women’s spaces since the urinary leash.

SternJoyousBee · 03/07/2025 22:29

AidaP · 03/07/2025 20:43

This feels like it needs a short history lesson.

Transgender people always existed, with varying level of recognition in the law depending on time and space, from annihilation to just another person. We managed to exist in either of those environments.

In UK, even in depth of section 28, we continued to exist and live in out transition just fine, the only variable is amount of harassment we have to endure that's endorsed by the law.

And you think that completely unenforceable law (under which it's impossible to prove that you are cis btw), with no punitive measures, is going to somehow make transgender people to decide "yep, you right, we will give in to the few loud transphobes and stop existing as ourselves?"

You live in lala land, not reality, if you think that.

And the law on top of everything is temporary, the reading you want of FWS puts us entirely in the same position which resulted in Goodwin, and creation of trans rights. Except now there is even more precedence in ECHR for us.

See ya in the loos that apparently bother you so much.

Show quote history

So you cannot be trusted to follow the law?

Cornishpotato · 03/07/2025 22:32

What is "cis"?

India Willoughby
I’m a trans woman who’s now cis. My transition is over. Reached my destination. I am who I am (as the song goes) ✌️🏳️‍⚧️ #Cis

Islington Council slams 'botched' single sex spaces guidance

Coatsoff42 · 03/07/2025 22:33

Cornishpotato · 03/07/2025 22:32

What is "cis"?

India Willoughby
I’m a trans woman who’s now cis. My transition is over. Reached my destination. I am who I am (as the song goes) ✌️🏳️‍⚧️ #Cis

Edited

It’s a short walk from cis to transphobe.

FrippEnos · 03/07/2025 22:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

FrippEnos · 03/07/2025 22:37

Cornishpotato · 03/07/2025 22:32

What is "cis"?

India Willoughby
I’m a trans woman who’s now cis. My transition is over. Reached my destination. I am who I am (as the song goes) ✌️🏳️‍⚧️ #Cis

Edited

I have posted this before

If trans women are women and women are cis women
Then trans women who are women must be cis women and women that say do not identify as cis women must therefore be trans-women.

It is a circle of never ending bullshit.

Cornishpotato · 03/07/2025 22:39

Wasn't it an Aida that was part of the gang that attacked Maria at speakers corner?

https://www.peaktrans.org/about-not-a-doctor-ada-cable/

About not-a-doctor Ada Cable | Peak Trans

https://www.peaktrans.org/about-not-a-doctor-ada-cable/

SidewaysOtter · 03/07/2025 22:43

Justwrong68 · 03/07/2025 22:28

That’s not what section 28 was at all. I’m guessing you weren’t there and put your trust in chat got. Once again you’ve made it about you; fact is we’ve never wanted men in women’s spaces since the urinary leash.

Show quote history

Exactly. More force-teaming

Because as trans woman my documents state F.

@AidaP, as a transwoman you are a biological man. You have no right, legal or moral, to be in women's spaces. You are not wanted there and if you continue to try to access those spaces all you are doing is showing your very male entitlement.

Fgfgfg · 03/07/2025 22:47

AidaP · 03/07/2025 21:10

That's from Goodwin vs United Kingdom 2002 my dear. The judgement you lot here make fun off, but not one person actually read.

Show quote history

When did you last read s.28? S.28 refers solely to homosexuality. There is nothing about gender, identity, transness, only sexuality.
A quote for you...
28 Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material
(1)The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the [1986 c. 10.] Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition of political publicity)—
“2AProhibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material
(1)A local authority shall not—
(a)intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b)promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

Bannedontherun · 03/07/2025 22:51

@AidaP Well i hope that the Ada who punched another human being is not you.

Do you always wear a skirt? Or just for special occasion's? asking for a friend….

LastTrainsEast · 03/07/2025 22:53

AidaP · 03/07/2025 20:29

Can you explain how? Because as trans woman my documents state F. Do I need to lift my skirt? Or is this based on the "we can always tell" that gets tons of cis women misgendered on the regular?

Show quote history

Decent people obey the law. Is there something you want to tell us?

It's quite difficult to stop crimes like burglary and child abuse too, but we don't legalise then for that reason or praise people for getting away with it.

And yes we know about the 'passing' fantasy but people only went along with that for politeness. You can't use Photoshop in real time in public so unless it's a very bad light indeed and you keep very still it's going to be blindingly obvious.

Regardless if you or anyone you know do decide you're above the law once challenged you may provide a cheek swab (if there's any doubt at all) and then wait to find out the penalty.

I imagine the first offence will be quite minor but that would increase each time and would come with a free entry on the sexual offenders registry.

After all with the weak excuse of "but we're women really" gone forever it's back to men sneaking into the ladies and being convicted of voyeurism, indecent exposure and other sexual crimes.

LastTrainsEast · 03/07/2025 23:03

AidaP · 03/07/2025 20:43

This feels like it needs a short history lesson.

Transgender people always existed, with varying level of recognition in the law depending on time and space, from annihilation to just another person. We managed to exist in either of those environments.

In UK, even in depth of section 28, we continued to exist and live in out transition just fine, the only variable is amount of harassment we have to endure that's endorsed by the law.

And you think that completely unenforceable law (under which it's impossible to prove that you are cis btw), with no punitive measures, is going to somehow make transgender people to decide "yep, you right, we will give in to the few loud transphobes and stop existing as ourselves?"

You live in lala land, not reality, if you think that.

And the law on top of everything is temporary, the reading you want of FWS puts us entirely in the same position which resulted in Goodwin, and creation of trans rights. Except now there is even more precedence in ECHR for us.

See ya in the loos that apparently bother you so much.

Show quote history

Even if we couldn't tell it just takes a cheek swab to show you're a man.

A faster test apparently would be to ask you to show some respect and common decency.

The law is quite enforceable and deliberate flouting of it will eventually lead to a stay in a prison with other men and a free entry on the sexual offenders registry.

The law is the 2010 Equality act and will not be changing any time soon. I know some of you think it's a new law but you have been misled.

We've seen the laughable claims made by GLP and that amazingly ill-informed letter by the 33 MPs (oh how we laughed)

Demands that the EHRC change the law have been entertaining as well as revealing of the depths of ignorance involved.

MyQuirkyTraybake · 03/07/2025 23:03

Coatsoff42 · 03/07/2025 21:00

As long as you are aware that a sizeable chunk of the female population are not comfortable with you in there, you are causing them stress and anxiety, and that it is against the law, then I guess it is between you and conscience how you act.

Few women are strong enough to challenge a man in an enclosed secluded space.

It’s very much a statement of your selfishness that you will act according to your own preferences and fuck over everyone else.

Show quote history

This. Male entitlement is off the charts.