Labour MPs have deemed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of a woman as “completely unnecessary” and a “backslide” on rights, months after the judgment.
Oh yes, it’s completely unnecessary to remind people that women, and women only, are women, and men are not, repeat not, women. It’s completely unnecessary despite the fact that a shocking number of people are insisting that some men are women and that non-men women are strictly forbidden to say otherwise much less act otherwise.
Although many letters sent by MPs, and seen by The Times, featured generic stock responses, an analysis of more than 50 pieces of correspondence revealed how some MPs continued to push back against the ruling and cast doubt over forthcoming guidance being produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the equality regulator.
Andrew Western, a work and pensions minister and the MP for Stretford & Urmston, told one constituent that he believed the case was “completely unnecessary” and he appreciated “the fear and distress that has resulted” from it.
Thus revealing that he has no awareness whatsoever of the needs of women, which is pretty appalling in an MP.
Josh Newbury, the MP for Cannock Chase, said in a letter it was “clear in my view that trans women are women and that trans men are men”. He said the Supreme Court ruling did not contradict that but that “the misinterpretation of, and fallout from, the ruling has wrongly brought this into question”.
He said: “I do not believe it is morally right for trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces designated for their gender.”
But he does believe it is morally right for women to be excluded from women’s single-sex spaces. Why? Why does he believe it’s more important to give a small number of men access to women’s spaces than it is to give millions of women access to women’s spaces? How does that work in his head?
In another letter Noah Law, the MP for St Austell and Newquay, said the ruling could “be used as an excuse to discriminate against transgender people”. He said he feared the ruling would “serve as a backslide” and added: “It is, ultimately, not down to any court to decide how people feel living in their own skin, and it seems like obvious common courtesy to let people live in a way that makes them feel happy and safe.”
Unless they’re women. It seems like obvious common courtesy to let men use women’s toilets but it does not seem like obvious common courtesy to let women use women’s toilets. Make it make sense.
Comments
6 responses to “Speaking of a backslide on rights”
Thanks to the lovely people here, I am able to see when a writer is dishonestly switching the meanings of sex and gender in order to disguise the fact that he or she is advocating to allow anyone to enter the single-sex spaces for the wrong sex. As in your example, Josh Newbury, the MP for Cannock Chase:
He should ask himself what the hell he means by “single-sex spaces designated for their gender”. Single-sex spaces are designated for one only of either of the two sexes. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it. Single-sex spaces for men are designated for men of every gender, from hyper masculine to hyper feminine, and regardless of what they might be wearing, or whether they’ve had any cosmetic surgeries, or taken any drugs. The same principle applies to single-sex spaces for women.
Why is that ‘clear in your view’? Don’t just say it, explain it.
Yes, it’s funny how invisible, unmeasurable, ineffable, immaterial, not-at-all-the-same-thing-as-sex magic gender-essence needs very specific plumbing.
But it is down to the courts to decide how legislation is to be interpreted – which is what happened. Given that there are laws applicable to men and women, it then becomes necessary to interpret who men and women are.
Unsurprising then that they determined male people to be men and female people to be women, as this is precisely what the words mean.
For TiMs, this isn’t about how they feel living in their own skin. It’s about making us ‘validate’ how they feel living in their own skin…and in the process, prevent us from feeling safe and comfortable living in our own skin.
It’s all for ‘me, me, me’ with them.
Here is the key passage in a brief summary of the judgment issued by the Supreme Court:
It is accessed via the second link in a detailed briefing on the judgment. The following passage comes from the full briefing:
Here is a link to the full briefing paper