The Law Is the Law. So Why Is Everyone Choosing Which Bits to Obey?

[IwantToRetire]

This could belong in the Green thread and the Lib Dem thread. And many others - sadly.

... Women have a right to single-sex spaces. The law says so. The court says so. The regulator says so. A right that women must sue to enforce, one hospital at a time, at their own expense, while ministers say “imminently” and parties vote to repeal it by motion, is not a right. It is a privilege extended to those who can find a KC.

Publish the NHS guidance, date it and make it binding. Tell every trust that a policy allowing access by self-identification cannot survive the Supreme Court judgment, because Darlington has already shown what happens when one tries. Tell the unions that their duty is to their female members, not to a campaign against a ruling.

The Greens, Sir Ed Davey and the Liberal Democrats remain perfectly entitled to argue that Parliament should change the Equality Act. Trade unions are entitled to campaign for the same thing. That is democracy. Until Parliament changes the statute, however, organisations governed by it do not acquire an exemption because they dislike the judgment interpreting it. You may campaign to change the law. You may not pretend it is not there.

The law is the law. Women had to win it in the highest court in the land. They should not have to win it again in every changing room in Britain.

https://heartlandstribune.com/the-law-is-the-law-so-why-is-everyone-choosing-which-bits-to-obey/

Maybe, for their next trick, men who want to be seen as women will instead pretend to be professional with legitimate reason to be in women's spaces?

Maybe Pingpong

Or they could try the other false whataboutery and claim to be male children who need to come with their mother or carer. That was the two Whatabout points we kept seeing. ‘Whatabout cleaners and ambulance personnel’ and ‘whatabout male children’.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

Pointing out that the world isn't as simplistic as some misleadingly portray it, isn't being obtuse. Reality is awkward.

I recall being taught, in the context of protest, that morally, if someone felt driven to break the law in pursuit of changing ir (think suffragettes) they could, but must be prepared to take the consequences.
So where are the consequences.for these men and their enablers?

And how one reliably assesses deliberation in lieu of a confession/psychic powers (to a degree that has never been demonstrated) needs explanation.

A. Sorry, this is the ladies.
B. Oh my goodness I'm so sorry, I didn't realise! (leaves)

A: Sorry, this is the ladies.
B: Sorry to alarm you, but there is a sign outside. We are fixing the broken loo.

A: Sorry, this is the ladies
B: I know and I'm staying because it isn't actually against the criminal law for me to use this toilet.

It's a tricky one, but I think one of these people might be more of a concern than the others...

I have different concerns with both the second and third examples:

The signage could be fake and the overalls a costume; it could be opening up oneself to danger from 2+ males to accept their assertions without checking.

The third sounds like he may be a risk because his thinking is a little "unusual" and don't know what he might do next.

The OP raises an interesting point, and I believe it has become normalised to ignore the laws you don't agree with, as so many now aren't enforced and widely ignored.

In the second option it's possible to check with whoever is in charge of the space, which is as much as can reasonably be expected in a public toilet.

The third option - the man who won't leave because he thinks he has a right to be there - is rather unusual, but isn't he the example that you are using?

I agree that the possibility of criminal charges doesn't arise from simply entering a space where you shouldn't be, but from the actions taken when made aware that you shouldn't be there.

It would also raise suspicion if somebody habitually attempted to use or enter a facility from which they were excluded, whether or not that was because of a protected characteristic.

See also the issues in N Ireland on Sunday, with MP’s encouraging people to join an illegal protest.

How single sex spaces should be enforced has always been a RRA argument - but really, everyone knows what sex they are, so they absolutely know if they are breaking social conventions (and let’s face it, some people enjoy precisely that)

Speaking of the suffragettes, can't resist adding this oldie but goodie: