More fuckwittery from Eva Wiseman, Observer

[ConstanzeMozart]

fuckwittery
the EHRC ‘insisting’ on single-sex toilets excluding trans people.
Well, only if they try to use the one for the wrong sex.
There are also some bingo points including trans people being excluded from public life, and women who don’t look feminine being harassed in the Ladies.

Also, suggests that she's outsourced her thinking to American TRAs. You tend to catch a lot of 'bathrooms', 'restrooms', 'first grade biology' etc among that cadre.

And that they are addressing a US audience as much as a UK one.

Huge contrast with Victoria Smith's latest-

https://glosswitch.substack.com/p/what-shouldnt-women-have?

I would really appreciate it if MPs who oppose the EHRC guidance could, just this once, express their opposition solely in terms of what it means for female constituents. Just say directly “you shouldn’t have this”, and “it’s wrong for you to expect that”. List everything that’s unacceptable. Name what, if anything, might be aside for the class of humans whom it is perfectly easy to define when doing a PornHub search or looking to hire a surrogate, but not so, apparently, when said humans are wanting to be left in peace. Is there any space on earth in which female humans should be able to congregate without the potential presence of male humans?

It so ironic that the UK Liberal Left will march against the USA at the drop of a hat, yet outsource all their social DEI policies to the same foreign power.

🎵I wanna live like common people…🎵

Are you listening, Nadia?

Another privileged traitor to her own sex.

How much do you know about this issue? Becuase both the EA 2010 and the Supreme Court decision was made under Labour administrations. For Women Scotland which took the case was founded by left-leaning women, and the EHRC guidance was drafted under a Labour admin and laid before parliament by a Labour govt.

You think that was all a long-running conspiracy to “fight for the survival of the right”?

https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/2062807223307268444?s=20

https://x.com/bindelj/status/2062779846237782296?s=20

Barking mad in Trancouver.

And how much do you know about the right wing media outlets that forced their hand? You act as if right wing media haven't held a gun to the labour governments head.

Oh & genuine left leaning women would never enable Reform.

Left leaning 'progressives' are exactly who created Reform, and MAGA too.

According to MAGA & Reform its white women 'failing to do their bit' for the birth rate who are responsible for the brownification of their countries.

But yeah, do keep on looking the other way.

Actually I’d like to know about this. It sounds a bit conspiracist to me. But go on.

EA 2010 was a consolidation of many bits of equalities legislation. It wasn’t either in reality or in presentation really about trans issues, which were not a big media issue. I don’t recall any instance of media holding a gun to the govts head over framing of either sex or trans issues in EA2010. What instance are you thinking of?

Between 2010 and 2026 the influence of media barons fell off a cliff. Who are you thinking of who applied this pressure?

The FWS judgment was a Supreme Court judgment. What leverage does the media have over the justices? What legal errors do you think they made under such duress?

The EHRC guidance was laid before parliament by Bridget Philipsson, who was running to be deputy leader of the Labour Party. How much do you think her electorate (Labour members) are swayed by right wing media? Did she have more to gain or to lose by being seen as right wing in this issue?

The EHRC guidance was laid before parliament by Bridget Philipsson, who was running to be deputy leader of the Labour Party. How much do you think her electorate (Labour members) are swayed by right wing media? Did she have more to gain or to lose by being seen as right wing in this issue?

Oh please. They won't vote Reform whatever she does. This is about holding on to government not her seat that GC's actively advocate against.

It has been the madness of identity politics...with boys competing in girl's sporting events; drag queen story time for infants; mandatory 'pronouns'; open borders policy; 'sanctuary cities'; Defund the Police; BLM; DEI policies; 'privilege and oppression' and so on...... that created the backlash and caused large sections of the population to swing towards populist parties.

And you think for this reason she released the guidance three weeks after the local
elections that Labour was fighting so hard for survival in?

I’m genuinely trying to understand your claim. If you could address the points in my 3:12pm message that would help me a lot. Thank you in advance.

Yes yes the right wing media did a sterling job again with their diversionary manufactured culture war scare campaigns as an 'existential threat'. But its immigration & the 'horror' of a black woman ruling that made the difference in the US. The UK was purely economics that Reform will no doubt blame immigrants for.

MAGA voters seem to now be demanding a refund. Reform voters take note?

Oooh, I sincerely apologise for my fellow Americans in not asking your permission before actually trying to solve our problems.

We promise to do better, next time. Pinky swear!

Are you sure you haven’t just got hold of a comforting simple answer to complex issues (‘it’s the right wing media’).

Because you make this claim a lot but seem to struggle to engage on detail.

The details are major right wing media outlets with huge reach manufacturing a moral panic. If you are going to pretend this issue hasn't been dominating the right wing media space I think we are done here.

Are you talking about the UK or the US? Becuase you’ve said it about both but you don’t seem to have much confidence in your own ability to explain your points.

If it’s as easy as you say then why are you struggling?

I’m also not pretending anything. I’m genuinely not sure why you think the current state of the EHRC guidance is down to right-wing media. I’ve explained the reasons why I’m not convinced point by point, and asked you to explain why you see it differently.

That’s all pretty bread-and-butter stuff in a good discussion. Why retreat?

You’ll see that my points don’t deny this is now a big media issue, but rather I don’t think that self-evidently explains EA 2010 or the SC judgment or the EHRC guidance. Why do you?

If you can't comprehend the connection between media campaigns pressuring government policy I can't help you. In case you have been living under a rock EHRC are government guidelines that thanks to media pressure have made the impractical & confusing reality.

No point in persisting, @GeneralPeter . As much good faith as an atheists' convention.

I think the reason you can’t help is that you are afraid to engage in proper careful debate.

I see that media can pressure govt.

1. what was such pressure in 2010 when the act was passed?
2. how did such pressure affect the SC justices? Their judgment is not govt policy.
3. in what ways do you see the EHRC departing from the SC judgment?
4. the motivation you posited for Philipson to have published ‘right wing’ guidance was to help the govt electorally. If that is the case do you think it’s odd that she published it just after an important set of elections but many years before the general election? Do the facts fit your theory?

The “well it’s too easy for me to explain to you” is obvious a bit of bluster anyone will recognise from their own schooldays.

But I do believe Bailey is posting in good faith in the sense of believing what they claim to believe about it being a right wing plot. I just don’t think they feel confident to publicly reason through their own belief in case it doesn’t work out well.