Stalling
Oh but it’s all so complicated, we don’t know how to deal with it.
Rules that would ban transgender people from using facilities that do not match their biological sex could be delayed for more than a year, it has emerged, as ministers were accused of “undermining the law” by demanding extra checks.
Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities minister, received statutory guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) eight weeks ago, setting out how gyms, clubs and hospitals must judge single-sex spaces based on biology.
The document has not yet been laid in parliament and many organisations, including some NHS trusts and the civil service, said they were waiting for the guidance before implementing changes after the Supreme Court ruling in April that the use of “woman” and “man” in the Equality Act refer to sex at birth.
They’re just helpless before this puzzle. What does “woman” mean? What is “sex”? What means “at birth”?
Now they face further months of uncertainty after the government insisted on a regulatory impact assessment into the burden the guidance would place on businesses.
Claire Coutinho, the shadow women and equalities minister, told The Times: “Any delay in approving this code puts the safety and dignity of women and girls at risk. The Supreme Court ruling was clear and every organisation has a duty to comply with the law.
“Doing so is not a regulatory burden that needs assessment by government bureaucrats. Bridget Phillipson must get a grip and stop hiding behind process to avoid upsetting her backbenchers.”
Oh come on. You’re saying she should pay more attention to the safety and dignity of women and girls than to her own standing with the trans communinny?
Dozens of Labour MPs last week wrote to Peter Kyle, the business secretary, to warn that the regulations would be a “minefield” of competing rights and there would be large costs to implementing them.
They’re not competing rights though. Men don’t have rights to force themselves on women. That is not a right.
The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.
Pray tell, why is there a “large cost” in men not using women’s facilies? This isn’t a demand to install fire escapes and sprinkler systems in buildings that don’t have them, or a factory recall of millions of vehicles with faulty brakes. It costs nobody anything for men to not enter women’s spaces and facilities. Hell, I do it all the time, and it hasn’t cost me a cent. Where does any cost arise, let alone “large” ones? As this is a “business” secretary, I’m assuming that he’s talking about the financial burden of enforcing the law, not the political or emotional cost of upsetting the trans lobby. Even so, did anyone give any consideration when the law was broken, and men were admitted into female spaces? Did anyone give a thought to the political and emotional cost to HALF THE GODDAMN POPULATION when men were let loose in women’s single sex facilities? No. They gave no thought to endangering, or even just pissing off women, otherwise the trans-motivated erosion of women’s rights wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Or, to put it in other terms, women can be safely insulted, endangered, and ignored, while trans identified males must be respected, pampered, and obeyed. Because they’re so fucking “marginalized”, “vulnerable” and “powerless.”
In (weak) defense of the foot-draggers, one point on which they actually might require “guidance” would be, not the adoption of a (simple) rule forbidding males from access to female-only spaces, but the (tricky) enforcement. It’s one thing to put a “females only” sign on the door, but when a male (inevitably) enters anyway, what can the property owner, or the police, do to verify the complaint? Force him to strip down? To submit to a cheek swab? There needs to be a plan to handle this.
Also, while there will certainly be males who deliberately flout any regulation, there will be “false positives” — actual females who are erroneously flagged as males, and must submit to some kind of physical exam to clear themselves.
Peter #2, nah.
The shop keeper calls the cops, who remove (or arrest) the man, based on him being–wait for it–a man.
Cops deal with men intruding on women and women’s spaces every day, and they don’t need DNA tests to know who’s who.
I guess the huge cost will be restoring the “women” signage.
This constant delay in both Whitehall and Holyrood shows some doubt among government officials about who has the final say on the law’s meaning, the Supreme Court or Stonewall. The Supreme Court has ruled that transwomen are men and that men are to be excluded from services and facilities exclusively for women. There’s a faction in government that refuses to accept this ruling.
But, this isn’t complicated, it’s how things used to be and what we all took for granted. There are areas that need to be cleaned up, such as scrapping meaningless GRCs and requiring birth certificates and other official identification to accurately state a person’s sex, but generally it’s a matter of reinstating how things were done some 25 years ago.
Srsly. We knew how then, we can manage to know how now. We won’t even need training wheels.