Keir Starmer and Bridget Phillipson have been urged by more than 140 feminist and LGBT+ organisations to protect trans-inclusive spaces

[IwantToRetire]

Have seen 2 articles which alerted me to this lobbying:

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-funded-charities-demand-uk-36689630

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trans-rights-supreme-court-starmer-hampstead-ladies-ponds-b2914769.html

Have now found a copy of the letter:

140 feminist and LGBTQ+ organisations join together to call for urgent action. Inclusive organisations must be protected
Article https://www.transsolidarityalliance.com/
Letter https://78af2a6e-4a1c-4f48-9808-387918a50474.filesusr.com/ugd/dc9c25_da7818fc42f8406c98881a1149cda065.pdf

Not that any part of it, nor that it has been written and signed, isn't the usual ignore women's rights waffle.

But more a reminder that there is still organised campaigning of the Government to ignore the Supreme Court ruling.

And sadly more than enough "charity" groups ready to organise against women's sex based rights.

Funny how they have to wear masks all the time.

this won’t last five minutes. Possible less time than this government.

i really really think this is just the death spasms of this crap in the uk.

Well given how long Phillipson has NOT progressed the Supreme Court ruling I think we can say it will and has lasted more than 5 minutes.

And has been growing for 21 years since the GRA came into force.

At its simplest that 21 years ago no one would have talked about let alone accept self identity.

Now it is the norm.

(Did you read either of the articles or the letter, or just look at the picture?!)

Well ... they say organisations but The Peter Tatchell Foundation is listed and which is, AFAIK, a one man band.

There will be others.

Things which make one go 😬

140 feminist genderists (because if [(edit) ou👀 you believe lippie and a feminine otlutlook👀 outlook makes a woman a woman 🙄) and LGBTQ+ organisations join together to call for urgent action. Inclusive organisations must be protected

Inclusive organisations are mixed sex organisations

Indeed. And its a bit misleading to say "140 feminist and LGBTQ + groups" I saw a total of 3 groups that used the word "woman" (I might have missed one I suppose) all the rest were trans groups/local prides etc.
Never heard of most of them either. I'm guessing tiny local groups with 3 members each make up the bulk of these signatories.

Feminist groups, ma arse!

At least the article in Scottish Daily Express raised questions about these groups signing it.

The Independent as usual just being a servile follower.

You would have thought after they must all have realised that they had been taken in by Stonewall they would be a bit more caustious, or at least even handed before just acting as a mouth pieced for TRAs.

Hmmm. Not many signatories with either feminist or woman/women in their title. Lots and lots of LGBT, Pride, Queer, and Trans though.

It's a nonsense letter setting out their nonsense world as if it were real. (Déjà vu?) A land where trans women are automatically included in all women's spaces. And all the women are delighted to welcome in their trans 'sisters', and no woman has ever, ever been harmed as a consequence.

From the letter:

"Trans people being included in services and spaces for their lived gender is the norm up and down the UK, and service providers & employers want to protect their ability to keep operating in line with their values. This is how the Equality Act has always worked: exclusion is the exception - not the rule.

Anything else risks forcing businesses, charities and public services to police everyone’s gender - with reports suggesting that the EHRC recommends this be done based on looks, putting all women at risk of misogynist abuse. This would be dangerous and unworkable.

We know where this leads: ‘bathroom ban’ policies in Trump-supporting US states have caused untold harm to trans people and to anybody who doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes, without making a single woman safer."

No evidence of course is included in support of this twaddle. Just a few dodgy 'sad times' quotes from selected Aunt Lydias and the laughable Hampstead Ponds 'consultation'.

They've lost. The law is clear, trans women are men under the Equality Act 2010. TW are out of women's spaces & GRCs are irrelevant. TW can choose the men's or a unisex/gender neutral option. That's it. The sooner TRA organisations accept the law and reality, the sooner they can give sensible, practical, & truthful advice to trans people.

Anything else risks forcing businesses, charities and public services to police everyone’s gender

Translation when give a choice to be law abiding or law breaking we assume trans IDing individuals will opt to choose to break the law
😬

What is more laughable (not) is that the labour leadership are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I think the political advisors to the leadership know that changing the EQA by legislation would be a bad idea electorally speaking , but going full on TERF as in line with the FWS ruling is also not an option. as we know menz would rather fruitcakes and dangerous men were all categorised as women.

sorry (not)

So what are they to do eh?

i dunno sit on the issue until it goes away ….which it will not.

I am an inactive member of the Labour Party i dont know anyone else in my locality

I think i need to get of my arse and make some noise.

as we know menz would rather fruitcakes and dangerous men were all categorised as women.

Would they, though? I think if that proposition was put to the male population as a whole, most of them would say, fuck me, no!

Soz i meant in the Labour Party

Ah, fair enough! Unfortunately! 😁

…to protect trans-inclusive spaces

And what does ‘trans inclusive’ actually mean? Is that code for we menz want to go wherever we want including female single sex spaces? The sheer entitlement. Like toddlers holding their breath and stamping their feet.

I’d seen it but tbh all these mad open letters blur into one.

Same. I'm surprised the Guardian hasn't been all over this (or have they?)

And in reality, this isn't about the need for "trans inclusive spaces" to exist at all.

If that was really all this was about they'd not give a monkeys that the only restriction on such spaces is that law says such spaces can't be called "women only" or "men only". They'd be out there creating them under new names.

What they are really demanding is that not that trans inclusive spaces can be allowed, but that single sex spaces must not be allowed.

It's not enough for to give support to trans people, they must take all sex-specific support away from female people or as far as they are concerned it doesn't count.

What they are really angry about is not, in reality, trans inclusive spaces or the protection of trans people, it's that women are being allowed to identify as not the same as trans women.

This is really about forcing women to accept being redefined as types of personality. It's about writing the legitimacy of female experience and the recognition of social, physical and economic consequences of being female-bodied out of cultural and political discourse.

Evil, nasty people.

'LGBT+ organisations' ?

More accurately 'T+ organisations'.
The bolting on of the T to LGB has caused harm to the lesbian and gay community, as we get dragged along on the ideological coattails of the T+.

LGB✂T

I think government are very used to mass letter writing now. That’s why the EHRC had to use AI as they were filtering out the identical protests.

It was interesting when you do a deep dive into the toilet consultation in England. Most of the replies mentioned one specific paper from Stonewall that wasn’t focused on toilets. It completely skewed the results which was recognised in the analysis.

I remember that other letter from all the "trans inclusive businesses" furious at the cost of providing legal single sex toilets in the face of the SC. Outside of some student unions, the majority turned out to be single person sole traders working from home but self identifying as major corporations. Not a shared toilet between them 😅

As usual, when you look behind the curtains of outrage - it's just a rag bag of entitled people who've never been told no.

Tbf the business has a legal obligation to provide a toilet (for their one employee to 24 employees) they still had to provide the required one unit with toilet [(edit) running🦧 i dont think it has to be mains connected a bottle/tank works ) water and a lockable door.

Aaaand the installation of a bolt could be expensive if you opt for the £5 brass one and buy a screwdriver
😲

I don't see how women who argue/advocate for men to be in women's spaces can call themselves feminists at all. Silly me- I thought feminism was about standing up for women! Not men.

Reading about Girl Guiding, the WI etc pandering to men identifying as women has things 'backwards way round' as my mum used to say
When will it end FFS

Love that phrase 'curtains of outrage' @MrsOvertonsWindow

And the other question, why do so many news outlets quote or promote letters like this without checking.

Isn't that what reporters are meant to do?

Fact check.

One of the biggest coups for TRAs was the near totally capitulation of the media to their obfuscation.