Men must be allowed to barge in
Solidarity for…whatever, but for sure not women.
Britain’s largest teaching union has voted to campaign against the Supreme Court ruling on gender, insisting trans women in schools must be allowed to use ladies’ toilets.
In other words insisting that women must lose their rights to privacy and safety. For the union makes men strong.
Daniel Kebede, General Secretary, said: ‘The NEU is looking carefully at the Supreme Court ruling and its implications for employment. A toxic climate has been created in recent years in which trans people, a small community, are treated as if they are a risk or threat to others.’
No, men are acknowledged to be a potential threat to women in small enclosed spaces with their pants down. It is the case that some men – far too many men – do take advantage of settings like toilets to spy on or photograph or assault women. The NEU should look carefully at that.
The court ruling, on April 16, came too late to be debated at the NEU annual conference – so it was instead discussed at a meeting of the National Executive at the weekend.
The 52 executive members, mostly regional reps, voted in favour of a motion called ‘trans rights are human rights’.
The motion says the ruling ‘contradicts human rights and dignity of trans and other gender-diverse staff and encourages discrimination, harassment and hate crimes’.
And what about women?
Pffff. Obviously the union doesn’t give two shits.
So that list of trans identified males convicted of crimes against women is a figment of TERFy imaginations? Or are these guys all “No True Trans”? Maybe you can instruct us mere mortals on how to tell the difference between the harmless, helpless, victimized men-pretending-to-be-women, who are demanding access to women’s spaces, and the criminal, opportunistic, predatory men-pretending-to-be-women, who are demanding access to women’s spaces? Is it the shade of lipstick? The right accessories, or the precise angle of head tilt? It’s sooo hard to tell one from the other. Some pointers from the NEU executive (who must obviously know, as they surely wouldn’t be making statements like this otherwise) would be gratefully received.
Note the rhetoric: Campaign against the Supreme Court ruling. There is, apparently, no consideration of the possibility that the Supreme Court might just have interpreted the law correctly and that they need to campaign for a change in the law. They are quite happy to follow where Boris led, without even any reasonable hope of post-facto electoral vindication.