Men MUST be allowed to do whatever they want
Nearly 50 MSPs and their staff have signed a letter to the governing body of the Scottish parliament expressing “deep concern” about its decision to ban trans people from using the toilets of their lived gender in the building.
Allow me to express my “deep concern” about the nearly 50 MSPs and their staff who are ignoring the obvious implications of allowing trans people to use the toilets of their “lived” (i.e. fake) gender.
Which should we be more “deeply concerned” about – men who want to invade women’s toilets, or women who want men to stay out of women’s toilets?
Nearly 50 MSPs think the answer is that we should ignore the needs of women and focus only on the aggressive demands of men in lipstick.
Alison Johnstone, Holyrood’s presiding officer and chair of the Scottish parliament’s corporate body, set out the interim position earlier this month in response to the supreme court’s ruling on biological sex.
Toilets designated as male- or female-only are now to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, Johnstone said, while the parliament will increase its existing provision of gender-neutral facilities which will be open to anyone, in an effort to ensure “confidence, privacy and dignity” for staff and visitors.
But the letter, based on legal advice from the Good Law Project, argues that Holyrood has misinterpreted the supreme court judgment.
Ah well there’s your problem. The Good Law Project is Jolyon Maugham, and Jolyon Maugham is absolutely determined to obliterate women’s rights in favor of coddling and cuddling men who pretend to be women. He’s also jaw-droppingly narcissistic, which makes him a tad unreliable.
“Misinterpreted”?
Misinterpreted how? The Court said that, for purposes of the Equality Act, “sex” should be interpreted to mean biological sex. The Scottish parliament said, okay, the Equalities Act allows for sex-segregated spaces where it is reasonable to do so. Toilets are one of those spaces where sex differences make it reasonable to provide separate spaces for women. Therefore, according to the Equalities Act, reasonable accommodations for sex separation means separation based on biological sex.
How could it possibly be otherwise under the ruling? What about “sex means sex,” don’t you get, you morons?
@#1: “Sex” may mean “sex,” as in “male” = “male” and “female” = “female.” Except that Jolyon Maugham & Co want it to mean whatever they want those terms to mean, and on a most flexible basis. Their dictionaries must be so rubbery as to bounce around if dropped on the floor.
It seems to me that the Parliament is doing their due diligence by increasing the number of gender neutral toilets – third spaces for people who don’t feel comfortable using the sex-segregated public restrooms. The fact that the trans will not accept this is a pointer toward why it is essential to keep trans men out of women’s spaces – the object is not to ‘just pee’ but to invade women’s spaces.
iknklast:@ #3:
Exactly.
Though perhaps, for a suitable fee, the janitor could issue a palstic bucket to any and all who might want to avail themselves of one, and supply directions to a suitable pillar or ornamental tree to go behind for use of it. Plus a lid, for as long as necessary, to keep any contents from public view until suitably disposed of.
Oh yes, and an optional black bag for the user to put over her/his/its head for as long as necessary to minimise embarrassment and protect their identity (ideninny.)
“Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” as my old Grandma was fond of saying.
I suspect that the kimono-clad fox basher heard that as “Where there’s a willy, it gets its way.”
lol