Corrections
I see I’m not the only one who wonders.
Of course.
Plenty of irritated women were on hand to say no, you damn fool, that’s not the ruling.
Tip Jar
I see I’m not the only one who wonders.
Of course.
Plenty of irritated women were on hand to say no, you damn fool, that’s not the ruling.
It’s bizarre, isn’t it? If a single-sex space for women doesn’t exclude trans women, then it’s not a single sex space for women. It is, in all cases, necessary as a matter of definition that a single-sex space for women excludes trans women.
Is there a law that requires single-sex spaces for women? That’s another question. There are businesses that have only unisex facilities. Perhaps there will be more unisex facilities now, if businesses catering to cocks in frocks don’t really want to have single-sex spaces, but that might take all the fun out of the charade.
It’s really strange, this apparently compulsive desire to misrepresent the ruling, which merely explained the existing law as it stands.
There are some claiming that it stops people who claim a special identity from going anywhere in public (not true);
There are some claiming that it’s a suggestion for new laws creating places where the special identity people won’t be allowed to go, but it’s not been written yet so men can and should continue to invade women’s places (not true);
There are some claiming that the law allows women to exclude men (and vice versa) on an individual basis, and so every incidence of exclusion should be taken to court as a case of discrimination against that individual (not true);
And now this… whatever it is.
I can’t be surprised that the people who have gained power from lying to those deluded, misinformed, and easily manipulated cult members are continuing to lie, but I am disappointed and disgusted.