‘Women means women’

[Igneococcus]

Akua Reindorf is not wrong there:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/20b84c9d-97ae-4df2-9190-870488c25d3a?shareToken=91224b9da4465f359971d8e29008a4c7

Great article, thank you. And thank you Akua Reindorf for being so clear.

Akua Reindorf: “people were led to believe they had rights that they didn’t have”.
“I was surprised first of all, in the aftermath of the judgement, that there was any pushback really at all because I thought it was clear,” she said. “I understood that people would be upset, but I thought they might understand that this was the law.”

A spokesperson for the government: “We know how important it is that women have access to safe spaces. That is the basis on which we are taking things forward.

NO!! The government can't even get that right, FGS. It's not "safe spaces". It's "single sex spaces". How many times have they been told this? I despair.

They know. But they don't want to set a precedent by being recorded using that language because over time they want to change the terms of the conversation to de-emphasise the sex element, making it easier to make a future case that as long as it's "safe" the sex mix does not matter.

I hate it. It's weaselly and manipulative.

There are benefits to women from single sex opportunities and spaces that are not do to with physical safety but with the confidence that comes with having your voice heard, having space to learn our own capabilities away from male entitlement and the male tendency to dismissing or reframe what women say, and freed from the mental load of having to monitor or restrict ourselves in case we attract male sexual aggression or violence.

None of those really come under the heading of "safety" but all of them still create material financial, social, political or cultural drags on women's ability to live empowered lives.

If they truly believe they are logically and morally right they should be able to face what they are really wanting head on and make the honest case why sex does not matter to women's outcomes - not just to safety but to all women's outcomes - but "gender" does.

For some companies that's all this has been about, the cost of providing extra facilities because the awkward women don't like sharing.

Agree. The government is engaging in weasel words... again!

We are watching 👀 and listening

It will be civil servants promulgating and promoting this ‘safe spaces’ nonsense. They advise the government on what to say. The capture and utter adherence to the ideology goes very, very deep.

It is interesting (at least to me) to read the Darlington Nurses ruling which is focused almost entirely on the nurses' dignity. No mention of 'safe spaces' at all.

The term ‘safe spaces’ makes me bristle. I find it patronising and sinister. It overlooks the other two reasons for single-sex spaces - dignity and privacy. It’s not just about safety. Why is it so hard for them to say ‘single sex’? Do they say ‘safe spaces’ because they don’t want males excluded from those spaces if those males are womanning correctly and are deemed to be ‘safe’? Do they think there’s some kind of sisterhood, kinship, shared experience etc between TW and women, huddling together in their ‘safe spaces’ away from those rough ‘cis’ men who are the real threat?

Why is it taking so long to implement the Supreme Court ruling?

How quickly our rights were taken away, without so much as a glance or by your leave, and yet the process of re-installing them is painfully drawn out and involves much weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth and general hand-wringing. The powers-that-be sacrificed women’s rights to gender ideology without a second thought. No consultation, no care or consideration for vulnerable women or indeed any women. It’s almost like women don’t matter as much as men. I am sick to the back teeth of all these simpering do-gooding idiots who are punch drunk on Kool-Aid.

(Okay, I guess I'll put this post here as well)

Thanks for the link, it's a good read, she really lets them have with both barrels - I liked this bit

“It’s not for them to get it right or wrong,” Reindorf said. “It’s for them to like it or lump it. They either say it’s fine and put it before parliament or they send it back.

Now we know what to shout at Phillipson, piss or get off the pot lady. 😁

(Copied over from the second thread started, I also spotted a spelling mistake)

'safe spaces' - it's actively deceitful. Dishonest. Confidence trickery.

The aim is to soothe the general public into thinking they're on it while they find a way to put dicks in women's spaces.

You'd have to be pretty thick by now to believe a word this lot said.

Safety, dignity, privacy, yes...

But there is a fourth reason for having single-sex things, which is also valid - just that we want to! It might be because men dominate conversations, it might be because some women have been traumatised by men, or it might be just because we want to be amongst other women. This applies to the WI, to the RSPB women-only walks, and any other situation where women want to gather together with other women and no men.

Facilities for changing clothing

24.—(1) Suitable and sufficient facilities shall be provided for any person at work in the workplace to change clothing in all cases where—

(a)the person has to wear special clothing for the purpose of work; and

(b)the person can not, for reasons of health or propriety, be expected to change in another room.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the facilities mentioned in that paragraph shall not be suitable unless they include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary for reasons of propriety F1and the facilities are easily accessible, of sufficient capacity and provided with seating].

That is the 1992 Regs in action
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/24

[(Edit) to fix format gone nuts]

🎉

I remember from my days in H&S, admin level only, I was under the impression that a company/organisation who had a robust H&S ethic could expect favourable terms when it came to the insurance every company/organisation needs.

If they've been found wanting on a H&S issue, amongst others of course, might it have an impact on their insurance premiums. Because if it does they will have to show that they've improved their H&S culture if they want to get lower premiums in future, which will force them to make real and permanent changes. 😁

Public money and the real cost is held off the Trusts books 🤨

They have a contingent liability of being sued by more staff.
soooo the financial statements of thr Trust is up for review too.

And most companies say they follow the law for H&S and HR when applying for insurance if the Trust is like Fife the Trust is dipping into public funding

Fife Trust spent ¼ mil half way through.
And will end up with more costs this goes up to the HC/SC.

Have to rework their HR policy and replace the current staff with ones who can be trusted to write lawful policy

Are subject to the request to produce the Public Service Equality Duty documents which they dont have

Have a male member of staff who stated in open court that he would expect other staff to participate in an assault of a patient who requested female only care.

Have a whole raft of ED staff and senior managers who would not recognise that ^ as the criminal act it is.

Find multiple new staff changing rooms.

And the board pissed off the Information Commissioner so that is going to cost them long term.

This will come from the general budget funded by public money.....

Private business would force change as pay and bonus are normally linked to profit and preventing preventable losses

But this is public money and both Trusts Boards are 100% responsible.

They know. But they don't want to set a precedent by being recorded using that language because over time they want to change the terms of the conversation to de-emphasise the sex element, making it easier to make a future case that as long as it's "safe" the sex mix does not matter.
I hate it. It's weaselly and manipulative.

It so is [saying "safe spaces"]. And although it seems only a relatively minor detail, it's a perfect illustration of the sheer bad faith Labour show with their every utterance.