Inclusive exclusion
Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories
Bros before hos eh?
Stupid women. They should just stay home if they want lavatories without men in them. Women are so fucking demanding.
The Houses of Parliament have refused to ban trans women from female lavatories despite the Supreme Court’s gender ruling.
A spokesman told The Telegraph that the House of Commons would be waiting for guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission before changing its rules.
You mean reverting its rules. The House of Commons hasn’t always let men use the female lavatories. If it had, they wouldn’t be called “female lavatories.” There was a rule (however implicit) against men in the women’s toilets until Trans Ideology came along to make sure women never have any rights ever again.
He said they wanted to ensure that all are treated in an “inclusive manner”. The House of Lords said it would be adopting a similar approach.
Hm. Can anyone spot the flaw? It seems pretty obvious.
I’ll spell it out. What the fuck do they mean by “inclusive manner” when they’re talking about taking away female-only toilets? It’s the old Anatole France line, which being translated is:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids women as well as men to commit rape.
Women are not a threat to men. I assume most men don’t want us flocking into the men’s toilets, but we’re not a threat if we do. The converse is not the case. Five little words: men are stronger than women. Throwing all the toilets open to both sexes puts women at risk in a way it does not put men at risk. This means it is not “inclusive” to force women to give up safe toilets. “Inclusive” is very much the wrong word here.
The Supreme Court ruled in April that legally a trans woman does not count as a woman, and that the word “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex and not gender identity.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) then put out interim guidance to organisations to underline that in places such as hospitals, shops and restaurants, “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities”.
A growing number of public bodies are changing their guidance in light of the judgment. The Football Association, for example, has said trans women would be banned from women’s sport. But other organisations, including the NHS, have said they are awaiting guidance from the EHRC.
But they already have the guidance from the EHRC; it says so right there.
Now the Telegraph can reveal that the House of Commons has also refused to change its guidance.
A spokesman said: “Like many organisations, we are awaiting full guidance from the EHRC on this issue. However, in advance of that we are reviewing the facilities that are available on the estate and providing support to colleagues where needed. We are committed to treating all those who work in or visit Parliament with respect, and in an inclusive manner.”
No you’re not. You’re committed to the opposite of that. You’re committed to continuing to force women to risk encountering men in the women’s toilets. You suck.
I feel like part of the way out of this madness, as things revert, is for women to demand that lavs stop being identified by little skirt or pants icons and clearly display a big M or a big F so it is clear we are talking about male/female/biology/sex and not what clothes somebody wears or ‘identifies’ with.
I think icons are used because not everyone speaks/is literate in the local language.
If someone can understand a skirt icon they can come to understand an F or M icon imo. Skirt icons just perpetuate stereotypes about what a women is.
I know, I’m just saying the icons are used for a reason.
The words male and female are based in latin and in many, especially western, languages start with an M or an F.
I understand why the icons were used. But now they just perpetuate ‘gender’ and stereotypes rather than much needed sex-based reality. That is why I say women should start advocating against being universally signified as skirt wearers. I was forced to wear dresses as a girl. Now I cannot tell you the last time I wore one. Maybe 25+ years ago.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female
https://www.etymonline.com/word/male
It is totally contrary to the idea of male and female toilets to make them ‘inclusive’. The whole idea of having separate toilets is to be exclusive. It is to exclude those who belong in the other type of facility. There is a reason for exclusiveness…everybody knows what that reason is. But trans advocates want to pretend they do not, and that trans women are not a threat because they are not men. The problem with that is that women need to treat them as a potential threat because they are men.
As for the icons, there are a lot of places that do not have icons. There are all sorts of ways that the restrooms are delineated, including such rather obscure things (to a non-English speaker) as cowboys and cowgirls, or as ladies and gents, or as women and men, written out. Somehow even those who do not speak English manage to figure out which is the correct room. For someone not speaking the language, the icon could be confusing. I, for instance, do not wear skirts. If I encountered such an icon for the first time in an unfamiliar place, would I know I should go in the bathroom for the skirt-wearers? Maybe…maybe not.
We are waiting for the EHRC to come to its senses and realise TWAW. And we can outwait the wimmin, we always have, we always will.
@iknklast In USA these stupid skirt wearing icons are nearly universal:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=male+and+female+bathrooms&ia=images&iax=images
I fully agree. I think that for many people, it’s much more pleasant to interpret those icons as referring to gender identities than to acknowledge the sexist stereotypes for which they actually stand. Their widespread and normalized status means they don’t challenged nearly enough.
Besides the letters M and F, there’s also the possibility of using those alchemical symbols. Their ties to sexist stereotypes are obscure enough that people wouldn’t make the wrong associations, and they’re not in any particular language or writing system in use today.
As iknklast pointed out, everyone might not be familiar with the local clothing norms either. Maybe that’s not as much of an issue, though; I’m not sure.
I saw a cartoon, decades ago, which definitely showed a Scotsman and a Greek, both in their respective traditional clothes, standing outside a pair of doors with the now ubiquitous symbols, evidently puzzled as to which was theirs. There were also representatives of other cultures, women as well as men, wearing traditional clothes and equally puzzled. Unfortunately, after all these years I have completely forgotten who they were supposed to be.
Ok how about for the women’s have an image of a person at a stove with a baby over her shoulder and a toddler at her knees, and for the men’s have a person chopping firewood. Informative AND artistic.
GC Gal, I live in the United States, and I agree they are nearly universal. However, I actually do see a lot of places without them, with other indicators and I never see people having trouble with the correct restroom. People can handle figuring it out, or asking, without sexist stereotypes.
They abandoned the man/woman vs. male/female distinction years ago, though. Even “male” and “female” are now understood in terms of gender identity as determined by self-id. Once again the very same people who insisted on a strong distinction between sex and gender are the most eager to conflate the categories they imposed on the rest of us.
And of course M and F could also be interpreted to mean “Masculine” and “Feminine” respectively…