Fit for whose purpose?

LibDems to women: you don’t matter.

Civil war has broken out among the Liberal Democrats after Sir Ed Davey pledged to oppose official guidance protecting female-only spaces.

Female people must not be allowed to have their own spaces. It’s a violation of the sacred rights of men to permit such a thing. Men are bosses, women are employees or slaves; women have no rights which the male person is bound to respect.

Earlier this month, Bridget Phillipson finally published the long-awaited advice from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). It tells businesses and public bodies to bar trans women – biological men – from women’s toilets and changing facilities.

The Liberal Democrat leader has written to Ms Phillipson to demand she withdraw the guidance, saying it was not “fit for purpose”.

He said the guidance was not clear enough, did not protect trans people from discrimination and harassment, and was not “compatible with long-standing British values”.

What he means is that it doesn’t protect men from being told to get out of the women’s toilet. Well guess what, bro: men shouldn’t be in the women’s toilet in the first place. I bet you used to know that.

The statement drew stinging criticism from Dr Zoe Hollowood, chair of Liberal Voice for Women, a women’s rights campaign group within the Lib Dems. 

She accused him of ignoring the views of women and prioritising the views of trans people.

“Polling consistently shows that Lib Dem voters and members believe single-sex spaces should be protected based on biological sex,” she said. “Ignoring this reality is a betrayal to women everywhere, including in our own party.”

It’s very embittering, this studied indifference to women.

Sir Ed’s letter to Ms Phillipson was written with Marie Goldman, the Lib Dem equalities spokesman.

They wrote: “We do not believe that the new code of practice is fit for purpose. It does not provide clear and workable guidance, and it does not do enough to protect everyone from discrimination, harassment and victimisation.”

It’s not victimization to tell men they can’t invade women’s spaces. It’s victimization to let men invade women’s spaces.

Dr Hollowood said: “Liberal Voice for Women is profoundly disappointed by Ed Davey and Marie Goldman’s recent letter to Bridget Phillipson.

By focusing on trans inclusion, the Lib Dem leadership has actively chosen to ignore the vast majority of women who rely on single-sex spaces when they are vulnerable and undressing.”

That’s the thing. They can’t do this “let trans women use women’s spaces” thing without ignoring the vast majority of women who rely on single-sex spaces when they are vulnerable and undressing. The two are welded together. Davey and Goldman can’t be unaware of this, so they’re doing it on purpose.

Comments

2 responses to “Fit for whose purpose?”

  1. maddog1129 Avatar

    it does not do enough to protect everyone from discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

    It’s not victimization to tell men they can’t invade women’s spaces. It’s victimization to let men invade women’s spaces.

    I don’t think that’s the “discrimination, harassment and victimization” he’s talking about. I think he means the supposed “justification” for the men to move over to the women’s side in the first place: the bullying, harassment, and violence that everyone simply assumes is inevitable if men who like to play dress-up in public use the facilities for their sex.

    Has this mythology ever been tested? Come on, fellas, give it a fair trial. You’ve successfully brainwashed millions of people into thinking that guys who go out in public in, for example, giant prosthetic breasts, or frumpy, badly fitting dresses, or sexed-up male gaze pornified glamor, are stunning and brave pioneering individuals, to be lauded and fawned over wherever they go. Nobody is going to attack or harass such public heroes. The trans cult have made it be “normal” to see men LARPing — however badly — as women anywhere and everywhere. I’d bet that other men in the men’s room wouldn’t blink or turn a hair as their fellow men, who call themselves women, use the same spaces. I think the boogeyman of “it’s not safe” for men-in-dresses to use the men’s room are false.

    I’m not suggesting that, if the experiment fails, and TIMs are harassed, bullied, and attacked in the men’s room, these men should be granted access to women’s spaces as a solution. No, if there really is a problem, then the guidance can be fleshed out with measures to address any “discrimination, harassment and victimisation.” Give TIMs a forum to redress discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Create public education campaigns supporting TIMs in men’s spaces. And give the TIMs the same tried-and-true “protective measures” that men think are good enough to protect women from “discrimination, harassment and victimisation” at the hands of men:

    — don’t go out alone

    — learn self-defense

    — don’t dress “provocatively”

    — practice vigilance and situational awareness

    — carry pepper spray or a taser

    — walk with your keys in your fingers

    — get a male friend to go with you to the men’s room

    Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  2. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    A very good point.

Leave a Reply

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