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.

I've just read Suella Braverman's piece in The Telegraph. The letter I wrote to my (Labour) MP last week covers much of the same ground, including the irony of a government led by a former DPP choosing to sideline the rule of law, a fundamental British value. I've concluded by saying that Labour will lose lots of votes over this, including mine. They've already lost the red wall to Reform. Now they're going to lose TERFs (and we are many). Well done Bridget.

This is such a gift for Badenoch.
What do we hear day after day from Starmer? As close to anything that defines him?
That if we don't have the rule of law, we have the jungle.
That anyone who doesn't subject themselves to the rule of law, is by definition far right.
All Badenoch has to do is repeat the mantra that all PMs must follow the rule of law, that it's been months since the SC ruling came thru.
That the official advice can be delayed no longer.
And that we all know what that advice should be.

Such thoughtful posts. Thank you.

I don’t think there’s any political incentive as we can’t rely on any party or government to prioritise women and girls, and it’s not a priority for most voters. Our most powerful weapon is the law, whether the gov. brings the ECHR guidance to parliament or not. Women will have to continue to bring cases against any institution that breaks the law, until it becomes too expensive for the NHS, universities, schools, private businesses, the civil service etc … to keep flouting it. It’s grossly expensive, unfair and extremely difficult for the women who are involved, but it’s effective.

The only way for the gov. to combat this is to change the law. I can see a scenario in which they attempt that, but I don’t think the conditions are right for it now.

I'm assuming the misogyny lessons will not be for boys who claim to be female but might include girls that pretend to be male.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the organisations who've been going into schools and getting paid to lie to kids about biology might see this as a new income stream.

So the question is, how do we change the incentives?

I think we need to change the focus from equality to safeguarding.

Politicians are solving the problem of equality and not discriminating against the PC of GR. The EqA isnt the only law, and not the most important in every situation.

The purpose of SSE, for the most part, is keeping vulnerable women and girls safe from all abuse, not just the most extreme. So not just the women traumatised by rape, but stopping 15 year olds feeling intimidated and watched in toilets and changing rooms.

Its as if politicians look at the two extremes - women who have just been raped and TWAW, and then stuck a pin in the middle as a compromise. But thats not safeguarding and it minimises voyeurism and indecent exposure.

It's a pity jamie wallis isn’t still an MP, because justify why men should use the women toilets while hes the visible example would be an achievement.

Grifters gonna grift.

Most men don’t care about safeguarding when it interferes with their or any other man’s sexual gratification.

The other thing about the misogyny lessons is that they'll be completely counterproductive. Who do teenagers think are the least cool people in the world? Teachers, even more than parents.

Our politicians are fixated on Andrew Tate, who is a very bad man, but whose peak fame was a few years ago. My unscientific sense is that most teen boys have never heard of Tate, and those who have mostly think he's cringe. It seems to me that teachers earnestly telling teen boys that Tate is bad is a very effective way of making Tate seem cool to teen boys.

I would say I don't think Phillipson has thought this through, but then again Starmer has more than once described Adolescence as a documentary. Once again I wonder about our PM's thought processes.

Starmer totally lost it in his fever dream politics of making every schookid in the country watch Adolescence on a 24/7 loop, and ban Amazon selling sharp-tipped knives.
Right there and then he proved himself to be an idiot and not so much out of ideas, but no ideas to start.
For kids to live in a world where in the morning at school, they'll know some of the boys were allowed, nay encouraged, to go into the girl's toilets and showers where they could look at the girls at zero risk, and in the afternoon be told that boys who stare at girls in compromising situations is the height of misogyny, tells you the West has lost it's moorings. And that Starmer is an ethical black hole.

The problem with talking about safeguarding (even though it is a safeguarding problem) is that then we will be accused of saying all trans people are predators when it's "cis men" that are the problem 🙄. And they'll say that that transwomen need to be safeguarded against cis men too.

So I guess that the outcome of the GLP judicial review will be some time in January now. Any chance that the code of practice might be laid before parliament before next Easter? Too optimistic?

Meanwhile, thousands of organisations are breaking the law, in a country in which respect for the rule of law is a value.

There's always another baseless accusation in response to anything we do or say.

So then it is incumbent on them to explain the difference between 'trans women' and 'cis men'.

Is this the bit where trans women and cis men could be described as "non non-men"?
One category. One double negative. One more dive into the Kool Aid.

But then they wail that transwomen are women, not just any kind of women, but the most marginalised women ever to walk the planet.

You can't reason with them. It doesn't matter how we try and frame the narrative.

Safeguarding depends on being able to speak uncomfortable truths. To consider the unthinkable. To see past bluster, derailing & defensiveness - something predators are skilled at doing and that safeguarding professionals are trained to identify and ignore or challenge.

That trans ideology has been able to successfully undermine safeguarding children to make it unsayable to identify paedophiles, predators and male aggression is the biggest red flag ever.
Not allowed to mention the sex crimes of voyeurism and indecent exposure.
Not allowed to mention age of consent / informed consent without some transactivist mooing at us "oh Gillick competence".
Not allowed to mention age appropriate without being warned of pearl clutching.
Not allowed to point out all the porn / paedophile / eunuch links in organisations like WPATH or the seedy histories of countless men seeking to remove single sex spaces.
I could go on....

She would need to be her own person.
She's currently doing someone else's nonsense.

People have lost their minds on this issue, especially when it comes to safeguarding. Look at the man in this video. An absolute creep and so many red flags. Yet people who think they are kind and progressive will tie themselves up in knots to justify why he should be allowed use women's spaces

https://x.com/hatpinwoman/status/2002012329999790331

In terms of safeguarding, all people benefit from the floor-door gap. That’s one of the reasons it’s there. It’s safer for a trans person to go into the single sex toilet for their sex than a private enclosed toilet.

Document T does not allow a door gap in mixed sex toilets. The workplace 1992 legislation says a toilet used by both sexes has to be in a room.

Document T is for England (doesn’t include schools).

It’s going to be a huge economic cost to the country to turn cubicles into rooms. And a huge loss in safeguarding to all, but particularly the medically vulnerable, women and children.

If you do EIA and risk assessments on a blanket rule introducing private sound-resistant rooms into public spaces, they would say it’s too risky. There will be more fatalities and more assaults.

I’m wondering if anyone will say he should.

And if not then the law should reflect that.

He did another video recently where he claimed he has used women's toilets 900 times in the past year. And apparently women have encouraged him to do so. And if you say anything...then something about the patriarchy.

These men think they can do what they want, and they are emboldened by the spineless position adopted by Bridget Phillipson.

https://x.com/i/status/2000034346288234963

Narcissism is a virtual requirement to be a politician, so I don't consider its presence a demerit. It's also a mistake to think that narcissism == cynicism or nihilism - the narcissist usually has a super abundance of hates and loves and sees themselves as having a special star to battle the former and promote the later. There's also a tendency to attribute cynicism or nihilism to contemporary politicians as a kind of general partisan put down, i.e. the politician is only pretending to care about things but only desires power - I'm very sceptical of this line of reasoning - it was invoked against Attlee, Willson, Blair, and Brown. In retrospect it's hard to imagine those accusations as being seriously entertained as each of them clearly thought they were engaging in epoch shaping political projects - sometimes successfully and sometimes ones that resulted in failure.

Starmer would be a very unusual politician indeed if he were simply a mechanical apparatus responding to stimulus in order to maximise personal power. And on its face not a very good one, at least so far as the last year has gone, but maybe it's too early to judge.

I tend to think that as time goes by and the intensity of individual battles fades Starmer's true political orientation and grand vision will become clearer, and (like Attlee, Willson, Blair, and Brown) it will become apparent that, when properly interpreted, it can be deduced from his actions and things that he's said all along. But I have to admit that my intense revulsion of Starmer's premiership so far makes that analysis disconcertingly difficult for me.

Can anyone hear it?
Not even whispers?
Nothing?
The call from Labour ministers for the advice to enforce women's sex based spaces to be solely for women resulting from the clearest of clear cut SC decisions, right now?
From Labour MPs?
From lawyers?
Legal experts?
Journalists?
Writers?
Historians?
Philosophers?
Academics?
Artists?
Tell me, when Johnson prorogued Parliament over forcing Brexit decision making in the House, what did all these people say?
When Farage talks about leaving the ECHR, what do all these people say?
I should be hearing a unanimous clarion call to follow the law laid down by the highest court in the land.
I'm still listening...