What @UKLabour@bphillipsonMP can’t justify is why it is “dangerous and an affront to dignity” to expect c!s women to use the same loo as trans women – but it is PERFECTLY FINE to stick women who are trans in with c!s men. And then you have the contradictory “biological” sex… https://t.co/rIyIR8Eljj
Of course they can. It’s because trans women are men! That’s it, that’s all you need.
Comments
6 responses to “Can too so justify”
iknklast
They will not be banned from using ‘any single-sex space’. They just need to use the one that matches their sex.
Mostly Cloudy
The “Stats for Lefties” guy, Mr – sorry, Mx. Ell Foran – is a fanatic partisan of trans ideology.
Sumi
According to Stats for Lefties, “trans people will be barred from accessing toilets, gyms and changing rooms that match their gender.” Oh dear, won’t someone think of the non-braineries? What toilets do they match? Transphobe!
Your Name’s not Bruce?
According to Stats for Lefties, “trans people will be barred from accessing toilets, gyms and changing rooms that match their gender.”
These facilities are segregated by sex. “Sex” and “gender” are two completely different things. Remember? Gender identities are internal feelings and perceptions which are, we have been told repeatedly, completely disconnected from biology to the extent that this internal sense completely over-rides the material body and its exigencies. If that is the case, then “gender identity” should have no bearing at all on the elimination of bodily wastes, physical exercise, and getting dressed and undressed, which are rudimentary conveniences for the lowly, flesh vessel of the Pure, Holy Identity, which inhabits a Higher, more Important Plane of Being. You can’t have it both ways. Or at least you shouldn’t. Of course being consistent like this interferes with predatory men being able to perv on naked women, so both ways it is.
Hahaha “rudimentary conveniences for the lowly” – I love that.
Arcadia
Such arguments also assume that said public conveniences for lowly flesh vessels have themselves (the conveniences) been coercively and violently assigned by identity, and not sex, which cannot be sustained with even a rudimentary examination of the historical record. If it was, those putatively described as “female” could have accessed public conveniences and other associated rights (voting, running for parliament, studying and practising professions such as medicine etc) without hindrance, once fortified by a decent pair of trousers.
Comments
6 responses to “Can too so justify”
They will not be banned from using ‘any single-sex space’. They just need to use the one that matches their sex.
The “Stats for Lefties” guy, Mr – sorry, Mx. Ell Foran – is a fanatic partisan of trans ideology.
According to Stats for Lefties, “trans people will be barred from accessing toilets, gyms and changing rooms that match their gender.” Oh dear, won’t someone think of the non-braineries? What toilets do they match? Transphobe!
These facilities are segregated by sex. “Sex” and “gender” are two completely different things. Remember? Gender identities are internal feelings and perceptions which are, we have been told repeatedly, completely disconnected from biology to the extent that this internal sense completely over-rides the material body and its exigencies. If that is the case, then “gender identity” should have no bearing at all on the elimination of bodily wastes, physical exercise, and getting dressed and undressed, which are rudimentary conveniences for the lowly, flesh vessel of the Pure, Holy Identity, which inhabits a Higher, more Important Plane of Being. You can’t have it both ways. Or at least you shouldn’t. Of course being consistent like this interferes with predatory men being able to perv on naked women, so both ways it is.
Hahaha “rudimentary conveniences for the lowly” – I love that.
Such arguments also assume that said public conveniences for lowly flesh vessels have themselves (the conveniences) been coercively and violently assigned by identity, and not sex, which cannot be sustained with even a rudimentary examination of the historical record. If it was, those putatively described as “female” could have accessed public conveniences and other associated rights (voting, running for parliament, studying and practising professions such as medicine etc) without hindrance, once fortified by a decent pair of trousers.