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.

God yes.

So many stupid people in positions of power.

3.5m people have signed the petition against Digital ID, Starmer is pressing ahead with it and broadening the scope every time he talks about it.

So petitions don't make any difference.

Vote them out, this stuff can be changed thankfully.

They are absolutely determined to be kicked out at the next election. Disgusting that a political party led by a barrister is refusing to apply a Supreme Court ruling.

The "incredibly complicated" argument is used a lot by the fence sitters in this debate.

I would be happy for someone to actually detail how it is incredibly complicated, but instead they say it's "complicated" and refuse to elaborate.

If I was a politician from a purely political POV (and not from any moral or social viewpoint) I just wouldn't bother with TRAs. They are never happy, they have a victimisation complex and any perceived slight against them will turn them away. Sainsbury's can't even sell a Grinch Xmas card without a TRA complaining. They will forever ask for more.

Not just you. Dictators are wolves in sheep's clothing until they gain power.

I guess that’s why CoL and others have been hanging fire in following the law? They’ve been tipped the wink that the law will conveniently change before they have to ?

Didn't the Good Law Project hallucinate the idea that it's customary for pregnant women to use men's toilets?

I don't think this is first time I have heard this argument.

I've certainly heard self interested male lawyers wibble on about this and mums taking their toddler sons into women's changing rooms which means that middle aged men must therefore be welcome?

It's absolutely bonkers. I have seen occasions when women have used gents' toilets (I've done it myself) - it's usually in some clapped-out West End Victorian theatre where they have three cubicles for women and the queue for the ladies' stretches back down the corridor. The answer is to build more toilets, not ignore the law as determined by the highest court in the land.

These people are utterly contemptible. I loathe them with every fibre of my being.

Remember all those ploppers on the pre election threads who promised once labour get in they'd sort it out and put women first. And the most important thing was to vote labour.

Yes, I well remember all the scoldings. I wonder where they've all gone, the Faithful. All namechanged and slunk away.

Ah yes I remember them well! Tho tbh a lot were also of the "look we all know TW are not women but you're over exaggerating the impact/ why do you care so much?/ it's such a small group of ppl couldn't you just be kind?" variety

Yeah, whatever happened to AdamRyan?

That person had sooo much to say back then.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5350068-good-law-practice-launch-a-ehcrsupreme-court-challenge-over-toilets?page=15

Surely a complete coincidence that this same idea about pregnant women using men's loos was part of the the argument presented by the Good Law Project?

(I'm surprised she didn't mention male cleaners).

Some very prolific posters who then just quietly disappeared.

I could never quite decide if they were individuals who just made their way here, or one of Morgan McSweeney's flying monkey divisions. You'd think they might have learned that trying to scold people into voting Labour is not very effective.

www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/3baee18dd4be1c41

In other news, the Highway Code is complicated because the emergency services don't always follow the rules.

I have used a toilet of the opposite sex myself and I hate other people for doing the same.

Not very bright are you.

A brilliant analogy which I am stealing shamelessly.

I suspect not but it would then also involve renouncing all of the protections and gains made in various other fields of equalities law, and they know it. It would also draw attention to the glaring case of cognitive dissonance involved in arguing that TWAW whilst at the same talking about protecting women and girls.

I would assume that one or both of the following might apply

a) the men's loos were empty
b) we sometimes do things without thought before understanding why other people might object.

I think they sense that what is actually complicated is how you square a belief in material reality and the reality of 'Sex' with an ideological doctrine that dictates you must believe that sex is not real and that some men are actually women. The cognitive disonance is off the scale. When you must adhere to an article of faith you cannot use reason, as it often gets in the way.

The only glimmer of light is GLP’s very low success rate.

Labour MP Alex Davies-Jones was talking about VWAG on the radio the other day and funding refuges etc. But it still took 3 or 4 goes for the presenter to get her to say that trans women wouldn’t be able to get into women’s refuges. They are just so resistant to actually applying the law it’s maddening.

What happened to LabourLosingWomen? Can you get that trending. It would be embarrassing whilst KS is (pretending) to do his VAWG thing. Raise a stink whilst Parliament is off for the hols.