Checking people’s bits

New Manchester mayor refuses to commit to implementing trans guidance

The Mayor of Greater Manchester has refused to say whether she would adopt new guidance on single-sex spaces.

Bev Craig, who replaced Andy Burnham as mayor last month, twice refused to commit to imposing Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance which says transgender people should use either gender-neutral bathrooms or those intended for biological sex.

So in other words the mayor of a large important city refuses to commit to protecting women from men who want to perv on them in places like bathrooms.

Asked whether she would oversee the “full imposition” of EHRC’s guidance, Ms Craig told Times Radio: “I am working through what the guidance means in terms of the transport services that I am in control of.”

Asked a second time whether this meant with the intention of implementing the single-sex guidance, Ms Craig replied: “Well, with the intention of understanding what would be different to what we do now.

“Actually many of our services are compliant. The reality here is that we are probably talking about a handful of public toilets. Am I as the Mayor going to be checking people’s bits on the way into the toilet? Absolutely not.”

That wasn’t the question. Of course. This is part of the playbook – pretend the questions are outrageous and absurd when in reality they are not. The question was not about the mayor delving into people’s underpants.

Last week, a coalition of Left-wing councils in London pledged to defy the new rules because they were “an attack” on transgender and non-binary residents.

The leaders of Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey, Lewisham, Southwark and Waltham Forest councils made a joint commitment to keep their services “inclusive”.

Which being interpreted means they made a joint commitment to keep their services hazardous for women.

During the by-election campaign to replace Mr Burnham, the former leader of Manchester city council said she had “fought for LGBT rights” throughout her career and would not “pit minority against minority”.

She said: “I believe in a world where the two can go hand in hand. I’ve shown that you can stand up for single-sex spaces, like women’s refuges that are important, but also not throw our trans communities under the bus.”

Under Ms Craig’s leadership of the council, it passed a motion in 2022 which declared “trans men are men, trans women are women, non-binary people are non-binary and trans rights are human rights”.

So the council passed a motion telling two major lies. Whoopee.

Comments

9 responses to “Checking people’s bits”

  1. Lady Mondegreen Avatar
    Lady Mondegreen

    Am I as the Mayor going to be checking people’s bits on the way into the toilet? Absolutely not.”

    This particular thought-terminating cliché makes me fume. IT ISN’T NECESSARY TO “CHECK PEOPLE’S BITS” TO TELL WHICH SEX SOMEONE IS.

    I’ve said this many times and I’ll say it again: sexual dimorphism in humans is not just a matter of our visible genitalia. Unlike bellybuttons, it goes way beyond who’s an innie and who’s an outie!

    We all pass strangers all the time, and we clock which sex they are without having to consciously think about it!

    (It’s true there are a few trans-identified men who truly pass — people who could afford extensive surgeries and those whose puberty was derailed — and, OK, nobody is going to check their bits. Fine. If those men want to violate women’s boundaries, we can’t stop them. But we can tell them what we think of them.)

  2. Sumi Avatar

    So, Ms Craig said she vwould not “pit minority against minority.” But, since women outnumber men in the UK, she has no trouble pitting minority against majority. I’ve never understood why the majority ever entertained these nutters in the first place.

  3. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    Outside in winter or on a rainy day it can be less easy to clock which sex people are, but other than that, yep, it’s automatic and instantaneous.

  4. Omar Avatar

    Sexual dimorphism is less pronounced in humans as compared with our closest biological relatives, the great apes, and it is interesting to speculate as to why. Fights between non-human male apes over mating access to females are common in the wild, but we humans have comparatively recently started living in villages, towns and cities, in which cooperative behaviour, the rule of law and so on has to be maximised, and conflict minimised; at least within the settlement boundaries. That could be a reason why; even the main one.

    There is also the cost-benefit calculation to be made. Is the cost of raiding or going to war against The Other worth the benefits to be gained as a result? Maybe Donald Trump could answer that, though he might say: “too early to tell.”

    (See aslo https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1633678100 )

  5. Sonderval Avatar

    @Omar

    I think it is a general rule of thumb in most animals that sexual dimorphism is weaker in species that have single male-female bonds and that bond for a long term (e.g. geese vs. ducks).

    Things like villages, towns etc. probably do not play much of a role here since the sexual dimorphism of Cro-Magnon humans is AFAIK the same as nowadays.

  6. Holms Avatar

    Last week, a coalition of Left-wing councils in London pledged to defy the new rules because they were “an attack” on transgender and non-binary residents.

    The leaders of Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey, Lewisham, Southwark and Waltham Forest councils made a joint commitment to keep their services “inclusive”.>

    Which being interpreted means they made a joint commitment to keep their services hazardous for women.

    They’ve also all but guaranteed the necessity of legal action against those councils to bring them into line, wasting local tax money.

  7. Holms Avatar

    Hm, I seem to have forgotten an end blockquote tag somewhere :(

  8. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    I can’t figure out which part is quoting and which isn’t, so can you just do a new version and I’ll delete the first?

  9. Omar Avatar

    Sonderval: In some spider species, the females mate once only in their lives, and are huge when compared with the males. After mating, the female is liable to attack and eat the male, whose lovelife can be thus miserably short, even though his genes survive him. That is, unless he can distract her with a tastefully presented gift, such as a nice insect he has caught, allowing him a chance to head for the exit; no doubt to ponder ever after, the hazards of love.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *