You’d think District Councils would be required to follow the law.
That’s so remarkably pissy. “Should others not wish to share the ‘ladies’ or ‘gents’ facilities with a trans person then it is they, not the trans person, who must use alternative facilities.” Why is that then? I mean, even apart from the fact that it’s the opposite of what the Supreme Court ruled, what’s the thinking? There are women, minding their own business, using their own facilities, but now a man bounces in and the women have to go look for a man-free facility? Make it make sense.
Comments
6 responses to “Should others not wish”
Make alternative arrangements? Do they mean something like creating facilities specifically excluding transwomen? Because I’m sure that they already exist in the form of single-sex spaces. And besides, the trans won’t allow women to create new, strictly female-only spaces because they demand access to everything that women have. It will create an endless cycle of women making alternative arrangements, transwomen demanding access because TWAW, the women being told that they can’t exclude trans and will have to make alternative arrangements, women making alternative arrangements, transwomen demanding access because TWAW, the women being told that they can’t exclude trans and will have to make alternative arrangements, women making alternative arrangements…….
We are living in an infinite regress!
Like this cartoon meme:
https://www.reddit.com/r/me_irl/comments/1053ovr/me_irl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The issue isn’t sharing with ‘trans people’ – that’s the lie they always, inexplicably, tell. The issue is, and has always been, being required to share with someone of the opposite sex. Why do they always ignore that?
Maybe he they can just pee on the floor of the HR Department?
tigger – well the lie isn’t really inexplicable; it works!