Cross-party councillors rejected a plea for single-sex spaces across council buildings and services.
The motion, tabled by Conservative and Reform councillors, called on Darlington Borough Council to protect women’s “privacy, dignity and safety”, but was slammed by campaigners for being “anti-trans and discriminatory”.
They’re going with that? Protecting women’s privacy dignity and safety is anti-trans? They don’t realize that the implication is pro-trans [ideology]=attacking women’s privacy dignity and safety? They want to be seen and understood as against women’s privacy dignity and safety?
Councillors were told [that], if approved, the opposition plea would place members of the transgender community at “increased risk of harm”.
So they put women at increased risk of harm.
Why is that the obvious choice? Why is that the default?
Labour and Green Party members vowed to protect the area’s LGBTQ+ community by refusing the motion on Thursday.
Labour and Green Party members vowed to do away with safety and privacy for women.
Labour councillor Libby McCollom, cabinet member for stronger communities, said: “The cruel and harmful narrative pedalled by councillors Dulston and Walker in this motion frames transgender and non-binary people as a danger to women.
Liar. The issue is that making toilets and changing rooms single-sex is a danger to women. The issue is that some males are a danger to women. Whether they are trans or not is not the issue.
Leave a Reply