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.

Long-term estrogen use in men carries a significantly elevated risk of breast cancer, heart attacks and blood clots as well as an increase in the risk of high blood pressure, liver damage, osteoporosis, muscle loss and of course infertility and erectile dysfunction.

What kind of doctors are doing this kind of damage to mentally ill men?

I've seen users of Reddit, some of them anyway, described as Predditors!

Anyone got a share token for this? https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/government-trans-rules-common-sense-exemptions-h8gnc9wnq

I can see myself having to buy a Times sub.

Here you go.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/822cf9a1-e836-48da-9b57-1cfef695072b?shareToken=bd9461999f2480ab85594ae00c21d5fc

https://www.thetimes.com/article/822cf9a1-e836-48da-9b57-1cfef695072b?shareToken=33a86bd43b700bf53d321f206043e775

I think this is it. I've just got a 3 month subscription for £1.

Here is the Archive version in case the share token expires

https://archive.ph/MlovH

Thanks for the link. And no, Ms Philipson, NO exemptions, 'common sense' or otherwise. Stop excluding women for men. Stop denying women their needed single sex spaces for men. Stop the bloody sexism. Stop sacrificing non consenting women to men. Provide third spaces for those who want to express their gender, that's the reasonable middle ground. In fact it's more than reasonable.

To tell you the truth I am getting a bit fed up with these articles in the Times, Telegraph, stating the bleep, bleep obvious.

Couldn't they just for once interview Phillipson and ask direct questions.

In a way this is just playing the game.

If the papers are supporting women's sexed based rights, they should by now be on full war path mode about not carrying out the implementation of EHRC guidance within the usual time frame.

The Government is clutching at straws to delay this.

The should say straight up these is problem with this or that suggested guideline.

Tag themselves onto a court case instigated by TRAs is not a good look.

Hardly acting with equality.

For the media, where would be the fun in that? Better to spin this story over a long period of time. News is as much click bait, long term engagement, and narrative management, as it is plain hard unromantic facts. It suits the media for this story to run and run.
Am I the only person who found the media's behaviour during Partygate and Cakegate reprehensible?
Taking months to reveal Boris shenanigans to start, and then drip feeding us for the rest of the year until his scalp was the end result.
It suits the media to drag this story out.
Whether that's any use to women...?

Thank you.

The examples she gave included a swimming pool that permits mothers to take their infant sons into women’s changing rooms and a theatre attendant who allows a pregnant woman to use the men’s lavatory to avoid queues. “These … might all be considered to be obvious and commonsense factual scenarios,” Phillipson said.

’might all’ ….

All is an odd word when you are mentioning only 2 examples.

As for the scenario of the pregnant woman going into the men’s - when exactly does that happen? If the hypothetical pregnant woman did do thus, the men would probably be gallant and all leave for her to go in alone anyway.

If there are exemptions then they need listing. Where is the list?

She did not mean those 2 exemptions did she?

This is completely disingenuous of her to an extent that is shocking.

Needles and haystacks come to mind.

This seems to me to be a self-own of epic proportions. They are tacitly admitting they are also male when they say this surely? So much for TWAW.

I can just imagine Phillipson and her boss Starmer sitting around with lawyers coming up with "exceptions that prove the rule".
Mums taking their toddler boys into the ladies.
How about, there's an emergency in a shopping centre and both men and women run into the ladies to take shelter? Surely women wouldn't say no.
Hell, even Father Ted and Dougall felt uncomfortable ending up in the lingerie dept, but if it was the only way to get past angry TRAs...lol.
The truth is, if we're talking biological women only in women's sex-based spaces, you could come up with 101 extremely specific edge cases as exceptions.
Reminds me of all the mind games and linguistic puzzles that TRAs used in the beginning to try and prove the veracity of gender being fluid.
You know, the "not all women can get pregnant/breast feed etc etc"
It will be quite something if that's what Phillipson is doing right now, trying to findd edge cases and specific exceptions like toddler boys with their mums in women's loos, to open up the SC ruling.

I can't believe how pathetic she is. It's just so embarrassing.

The ruling already made accommodation for toddler boys.

And seriously? A theatre attendant should usher a pregnant woman into the gents?

It's stroke inducing, risible jibber jabber.

If you're going to actually search out a bloody 'theatre attendant' to help a pregnant woman, they'd help her jump the queue to the ladies, not escort her to the men's, ffs.

What pregnant woman would take a piss in the gents??? 😆

I'm late to this thread but I agree with you.

Now THERE'S an image I didn't need 😂😣

I think in most cases, if not all, the women waiting would let a desperate pregnant woman jump the queue. I'm damn sure I would

The Times and others had very reasonable New Year rates for new subscribers.

It's like speed limits, isn't it? It's very easy to think of emergency situations where someone breaks the speed limit and it wouldn't be in the public interest to nick them. But we don't explicitly set up speed limits with a huge laundry list of exceptions which we advertise will get a speeding driver off the hook.

If the EHRC has provided very detailed statutory and then Phillipson, I assume with Starmer's encouragement, is approaching this guidance with the mindset of "let's see how many specific edge cases I can think of that can be included as exemptions", that's a big giant signal to TRAs that Stonewall Law will continue in practice, no matter what the SC says the law actually is.

And she knows it.

Its a strange bind they have got themselves into.

Single sex spaces were designed without having these imagined exceptions having to be watertight.

Nothing legally has changed. It has just been established that trans identified men arent an exception, but small boys are.

Its like having to suspend speeding limits because a man driving his wife to the labour unit is let off a fine, but a man driving to work isn't?

Or because emergency services sometimes break the speed limits, therefore nobody should have to follow them.

BP know these are nonsense arguments. We'll see what the high court makes of them.

Do they think the public are fools? It seems so. How cynically they are playing us. Speed limit analogy is spot-on.

The examples she gave included a swimming pool that permits mothers to take their infant sons into women’s changing rooms and a theatre attendant who allows a pregnant woman to use the men’s lavatory to avoid queues. “These … might all be considered to be obvious and commonsense factual scenarios,” Phillipson said.

Not commonsense at all. If I were the theatre attendant I'd say to the women in the women's queue, "Do you mind if this pregnant woman goes first?" In fact, you probably wouldn't need a theatre attendant to do this at all as most of the women would agree anyway.

going in the disgusting men's would probably make her throw up

Going full circle from the TRAs in 2015 coming up with any number of edge cases saying "not all women have this, not all women do that" to Phillipson in 2015 looking for edge cases with a magnifying glass and a set of tweezers applied to the SC ruling.
Doesn't she realize this is lose lose.
The TRAs and other screaming types that the Labour Party seen unable to confront will see anything short of total access for men as betrayal.
Women, incl increasingly eyes wide open ones who maybe gave trans the benefit of the doubt, overdose of empathy types, those who want an unexciting life, will see capitulating here as more and more against their interests.
Labour lose them as well.
The window of opportunity for Labour to make the right decision and keep the moral high ground with the vast majority of women (and men on the side of reality and common sense) is closing fast.
Starmer loses his best last chance to show he's willingly on the side of women.
But then again, from the days of him saying "99% of women don't have a penis, and I'm a total champion of protecting safe spaces for women" in the year ahead of the GE, where we knew deep down he'd fail at every stage of the way, this isn't news.
Despite this, it still feels like betrayal in a huge way, that so many were played by him, and from my POV at least, for someone who claims they're religiously allied to the rule of law, even here he remains a politician to his core.

She knows it and this is what she wants.

They simply don’t understand or accept that many females do not want males included in single sex provision regardless of their vulnerability or whether or not they are a threat to physical safety. They think that the ‘dignity and respect’ objection to male bodied people being included is less compelling than the ‘dignity and respect’ afforded to transwomen by being included.

They are right in stating that not all transwomen are a threat to safety. I would love to hear them explain why they think a 5 foot 5, 48kg gay male who has been hospitalised in the past from ‘gay bashing’ should not be afforded safety by using female provision - in light of male bodies not being considered an important enough factor in determining ineligibility to use female only provision.