GLP v EHRC judgement - Thread 2

[Another2Cats]

This is a continuation thread from here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5489699-glp-v-ehrc-judgement-is-coming-tomorrow?

Onepostwonder
You are bloke from Tranada.
You have clearly never experienced most of the world.
Try walking into the female area of a mosque in Pakistan.
Your pelvic bone angle and gait gives you away.
You might think you pass as a woman.
Women know you do not.
They know that you are a threat because you do not respect their spaces and rights.

You are perfectly welcome to believe what you want about a future event. In this case, that belief doesn’t seem to be based on any evidence just wishful thinking.

‘Real life’ has already happened and the support for only mixed sex provision is diminishing.

I know women who have been harmed by the question and subsequent actions from people, regardless of how they sound. This was before the UK government decided to embody the policing of gender within law.

I've never found myself in a mosque, but I have been to several muslim countries. I was instructed to follow the social conventions expected of western visitors in each country. This wasn't up to me.

Your beliefs are your beliefs however. It's weird you have them about me, personally, though.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, who the fuck emboldened these so-called anti-trans individuals if not for all the trans individuals being in places they aren’t supposed to be.

So, essentially, you think a group of male people will simply ignore the laws and policies and use female single sex provisions.

Some will do it by stealth believing that nobody will notice, while you think another group will make it a political statement.

And again you have stated, as you have previously, that you considered male people's comfort without ever considering female people's comfort in your deliberate choice to use female single sex provisions. Thanks for reconfirming this.

You entered this country illegally by lying about your sex. Your marriage is illegal because you lied about your sex and married before same-sex marriage was allowed. Your adopted children think you are a woman, hence your status as a parent is completely false; the truth will devastate them.

No one around you really understands who you are as a human being. Maybe that's why you're here telling some truths.

You live in a house of cards built on a foundation of lies. One wrong move and you could lose everything. Mighty stressful I'd imagine.

Yet you think you can lecture us on 'reality'?

I believe some trans women and trans men will just keep living life as we have, yes.

This is your belief.

These are all things you've told us over several threads. Not my belief, just your life.

If people don’t follow policy or law, then I guess they will be banned from venues or face disciplinary processes at work.

I don’t believe ignoring laws or policies will reverse the current diminishing support for male people to have access to female single sex spaces. I believe it will be the opposite.

I also think it is an act of abuse for male people to continue to use female single sex provisions when there is a clear law and policy saying not to. And I believe it is an abusers line to declare that female people will get used to it and support male inclusion in the end while male people over ride female people’s lack of consent and the country’s laws through to organisational policy.

I really don’t think male people think this through when they make declarations such as this. It is all about them, and never about benefitting female people.

[taps the sign]

Re: Real life.

I often talk about distressing stuff that happens in toilets and one that is common that I don’t talk about much is getting trapped. Thousands of people get trapped in real life.

Last year two young women who were trapped in non-domestic toilets made social media. One, laughing about it (simple, single sex design). She quickly got hoisted over the partition.

The other (unisex design) laughing not so much but luckily her boyfriend was there to phone the fire brigade. It took them a while to get in. The unisex toilets were new, expensive, ‘soundproof’ and had an automated door.

Building regs mean the safest design is single sex design. It’s simple, economic, healthier and safer. Building regs cover all premises. Services and Workplaces.

You can’t have a mixed sex design that’s got the gaps below and above the door and partitions. Everyone knows what will happen and there has never been a regulated design that has allowed it that I know of. If a single sex toilet cubicle is in a mixed sex environment, as in the ‘inclusive’ designs (not regulated) transactivists like, then the cubicle becomes private too. This is not a safe nor healthy ‘solution’. It’s also not a self contained room containing extra facilities like a sink and dryer which is what unisex provision is in legislation and regs in the U.K.

Thanks to FWS, single sex toilets can now be in single sex environments again. That means less private cubicle designs and more toilet blocks with safer and healthier cubicle designs. The people what will benefit the most are medically vulnerable, women and children.

We can’t get rid of all unisex designs but we can make sure there is single sex provision in single sex environments as the main default.

Health and safety isn’t exciting but it’s there to protect everyone in real life. That’s not going to change.

Just one quick tap on the (toilet) door to keep check on real life 👍

Oh, while we're all here.

Sex realists have this unparalleled ability to invent and adopt new slurs. Well, with the exception of race realists, maybe.

Please explain what 'tranada' is attempting to infer. Is it a slur about:

1. Trans people, for existing?
2. Canadians, for their remarkable tolerance?
3. Canada, for its remarkable human rights protection?

Is it a combination of 1 and/or 2 and/or 3? Dependant upon the context? Please educate me?

I assume Canada for being sexist and regressive and lacking human rights protections for women.

Tranada lacks protections for anyone. Need a ramp to get into your home? Have you thought instead about asking the state to kill you? Remarkable? That's one way of describing it.

O Tranada

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/barry-neufeld-former-chilliwack-bc-trustee-pay-hate-speech-tribunal-2slgbtq-9.7098536

That tracker goes back nearly 7 years and the percentage of responses showing no support for single-sex facilities, with or without gender neutral ones too, is consistently well under 10%. I think you'll be waiting a long time.

Based on what you have repeatedly said is your "lived experience". What other kind of experience there can be escapes me.

Yet again @Keeptoiletssafe is the ultimate voice of sanity in this debate. We owe her a huge debt of gratitude.

Yes, it was.

A quick ‘thread round up as to what we have established….

The interim guidelines were found to be lawful
JM / the GLP did the ‘single sex provision is for one sex only’ crew (aka the vast majority of the population) a solid, and has to pay £300k for doing so
He has resorted to grossly misrepresenting the law out of desperation. The jury is out as to whether this is because he has genuinely lost the plot or recognises that this is the only remaining option to push for male inclusion in female only spaces.

Meanwhile, TRAs continue to make up stories about why it’s legitimate for some, but not all males, to use provision designated for females only.

And, today, Brigette Phillipson said that access to single sex provision should determined by biological sex, that this has always been the law, and no provider should wait for the EHRC guidance before enforcing this!

You want education? Infer is what a person works out from something; imply is what something demonstrates to a person. "Tranada" implies that Canada is deep down a trans rabbit hole. It doesn't infer anything