Brigitte Phillipson blocking EHRC guidance

[lcakethereforeIam]

I'm not sure if there's anything new here though

Phillipson blocks trans guidance after landmark Supreme Court ruling https://share.google/P91PBE5Cy4ROwsdA1

It's a very stark article in the Telegraph.

It’s all just tiresome nonsense. I note she’s choosing some of the most vulnerable examples of women in order to deny women safety too – ‘a pregnant woman, desperate for the loo’, ‘a woman with a little son’. Whom nobody in their right mind would ever complain about. In order to allow pervy men into opposite sex spaces.

She is hellbent determined to hand over this country to Reform. I no longer think Labour can be saved.

I agree with you. The Tories are the only ones speaking common sense at present. Reform don't really care, they just use this as a weapon with which to bludgeon Labour.

I can't see a pregnant woman doing this. I suggest she'd use the accessible toilet if really desperate.

I've said this before but my trans man friend thinks trans women should be allowed in ladies loos because then no-one will challenge trans men for looking like men. Apparently trans men are unsafe in men's facilities.

Now we find out pregnant women are perfectly safe in men's loos. The world truly has gone mad.

I believe it’s the justice that presided over the Good Law Project recent debacle. Sorry, hearing. The one where the GLP said the interim EHRC advice was all wrong and mean.

The whole safety schtik is patently bollocks, it's just one of the many random things tossed in the hope of something sticking that means women surrender to men in their spaces. It only works if you at no time engage your brain or common sense.

Gender neutral additional spaces are the answer; everyone can swan about in there being their special true selves and leave those who need single sex spaces in peace.

Ridiculous. The Supreme Court acknowledged taking in young dc and I’d never go into a male loo pregnant or not. Utter manipulative rubbish.

Pointless Labour.

I agree with pp re Kemi too.

The SCJ basically goes:

'we hear you guys, you're very special and important and there should absolutely be facilities and answers for your needs so let's plan them - the only thing off limits is that you cannot deprive the entire female half of the population of single sex spaces'.

Government and activists: WAAHHHHH! <months and months of wailing and heel drumming>

Which tells you really all you need to know. About safety, sincerity, reasons, all of it. And the only actual goal or desire.

I don't have a problem with the arrest of the woman praying. Other than that, though, I am fully in agreement with you.

Reform is very peculiar on this subject in a way that I haven't seen well articulated in political journalism. It's as though they're faintly homophobic, know that homophobia is an electoral problem but are unable to disentangle gc vs transphobia vs homophobia, e.g. when they're attempting to be relaxed about social issues (which they feel they need to be to broaden their appeal) they're likely to say men should be in women prisons, and when they're sceptical of Stonewall (and appealing to their base) they're likely to opine about gay marriage being a bad idea. So, they're actually not very good (unlike Trump) about translating GC belief into winning electoral arguments and messaging. That's probably one of the reason's Labour seems to have diminished capacity for reading political signals on the topic.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have become exquisitely precise in marshalling GC arguments, but of course they are being hammered (not without justification) for a decade and a half of misrule.

On what planet does she imagine pregnant women are routinely using men's toilets? If a pregnant woman was that desperate, she'd ask the women in the queue if she could push in. There's not going to be a single woman who would say no.

She's taking a TRA argument and saying it out loud, and looking ridiculous.

And yes, same with little boy children. Actually there in the bloody ruling. In black-and-white.

And what the ever loving fuck is this?

She even went so far as to ponder whether a peripatetic female massage therapist who only provides massages to women could make an exception for a man with whom she has a pre-existing professional relationship.

I don't even understand it. A female massage therapist who occasionally gives a male mate a massage? Or is it not a mate? A professional relationship? What's that? Her boss?

There's barrel scraping, and there's lying head down in a barrel, and licking it.

The HSE and BSR will be pulling their hair out. They are the ones that are going to have to go back to Bridget Phillipson and say we have 2 options here:

1. Both sexes are allowed in a toilet cubicle or toilet room, so the design of each has to be rebuilt to a mixed sex design. This means scrapping single sex provision, variations of which are most of the toilet provision in the country. Designs C and D in Document T (2024) are no more. This is huge in economic terms. You have to have separate rooms, fully private and sound resistant, with sinks, mirrors, and a hand drying system inside. There will likely be less provision overall due to space. The theatre may have to extend intervals due to the fact it takes much longer in occupant turnover (waiting for someone to wash their hands, do their hair inside the cubicle). On the plus side, women who can hold on often exclude from these designs (but won’t be spending money buying drinks), so men won’t have to wait as long. Maybe your pregnant woman will get lucky but once she’s inside the private cubicle, it’s scientifically proven she’s in the most unhygienic toilet design and if she feels unwell, no one will know.

1. Both sexes are allowed in all toilets but to keep provision as it is and ‘just’ change Health and Safety legislation and Building Regulation on toilets. The HSE and BSR will have a huge task on their hands. Risk assessments and Equality Impact Assessments would have to be ignored as currently mixed sex designs are completely private to prevent voyeurism. What to do about urinals? Parts of the Sexual Offences Act (2003) would also need to be looked at carefully as they may be unworkable in their current form. Again women and also men exclude from these designs but the likelihood is from a theatre point of view, they will lose income unless they change all their designs to being private.

So the end point in option 2 is private mixed sex cubicles and shared mix sex sinks which everyone hates, a poorer theatre and designs that are less healthy and safe for your pregnant woman.

Or, Bridget Phillipson could keep legislation, regulations, building standards and the Sexual Offences Act as they are and exclude men except younger boys (agree an age), cleaners (under an agreed protocol of keeping the doors open and a sign as is done now) from women’s toilets. The theatre doesn’t spend extra money. Women let a desperate pregnant woman jump the queue or staff assist her to jump the queue by following agreed protocols. Everyone benefits from safer, healthier design. This is the common sense option.

Reform also comprises aa wide array of odd bods, mis-fits as well as out and out racists, and furthermore is trying to unite people of widely different demographics and former political allegiances. It is a protest movement.....not a consistent political entity.

I think Lee Anderson reflected their general position when he said:

“And you know what, the old traditional working-class Labour voters will take a look at Eddie Izzard and think, y’know, really? Is that what’s coming to parliament? I think it opens a whole new debate, mate. I’m going to be honest now, controversial as always, if he does get elected and I’m still here, I shouldn’t be following him into the toilets.”

He understands that the issue is a problem for Labour, but that doesn't extend to actually doing something for women e.g. accepting Eddie Izzard in the toilet that he is entitled to use, I assume because he thinks Izzard is gay.

Just noticed my two options both were under a 1! Pesky bullet points. It does boil down to one option though. We have mixed sex toilets or not.

That's because 30p is as thick as fucking mince.

So true.
These are all arguments made by inadequate men based on their fantasies. The fact that a woman KC and Philipson parroted them just shows how pushing transactivism renders people looking clueless when they spout such nonsense.

The Times & Telegraph articles linked upthread are full of thousands of ordinary men and women ridiculing them. Men don't need to be told that pregnant women are not ushered in to the Gents. They know it doesn't happen.

But it does show that this is all they've got - these are their best arguments 😂

Spot on, you have summed up the position very cogently. That said, I very much doubt if any of the omnicausers who tend to support trans rights would ever vote Reform anyway.

This is true. And Farage, to his credit realises this as a vulnerability and is determined to prevent a ukip debacle this time rounds; and if clarity around GC issues is casualty and results in over correction, in his mind -- so be it.

She even went so far as to ponder whether a peripatetic female massage therapist who only provides massages to women could make an exception for a man with whom she has a pre-existing professional relationship.

There is nothing to stop anyone providing different services to different groups of people. Is she under the impression that once somebody has offered a service to people with a particular PC, they can never offer services to anyone else? That a trainer who advertised a bootcamp for women over 50 would be dobbed in if she was found giving personal training to a man of 25?

I think this is what baffles me. Philipson actually sent someone into a court of law and came out with that nonsense - actually addressed in the judgment -

and expects it to do something other than make her look an absolute incompetent fool who is not across her brief, and hasn't even skim read the material she's apparently 'going through so very carefully for months and months'. She has apparently parroted something handed to her by an activist who has also neither been able to read nor understand the judgment they are in court discussing.

This is the best they've got. Like Kemp's ten major error judgment. These people are basically incompetent. Normal people would be desperately embarrassed and in trouble at work for things like this - and yet this bunch just sail on. Lying and stating this nonsense and identifying as it all being normal and fine.

This is what happens when you start having wobbly boundaries around powerful people being entitled to play LARP and it's considered taboo for the lesser mortal service class to say 'you are talking absolute bollocks and that is factually incorrect'.

Exactly. And of course this omits the real issue -- under the old regime would this hypothetical peripatetic have been allowed to decline providing intimate service to a man dressed in female regalia, demanded in his home, without being charged with transphobia and hateful discrimination? Of which there are numerous similar real-world cases to draw from as exemplars.

Yes. Hasn't read it, And is using TRA arguments. Which are all embarrassing. And clearly, as MrsO says above, in the purview of male fantasy.

Written by men who will never be pregnant, and have never had occasion to take a boy child to the toilet.

I mean, we are all quite used to it from TRAs but it being spouted by the UK Secretary of State is so cringe it's difficult to believe.

How I wish BP was literally reading this thread, perhaps that would drum it in!