Bridget Phillipson told Britain’s equality regulator that it must “tone down” its guidance over single-sex spaces and make it more inclusive before she presents it to parliament, The Times understands.
For the billionth time: you can’t make single-sex spaces “more inclusive” without making them not single-sex spaces. It can’t be done, because it’s a contradiction. It’s squaring the circle. IT CAN’T BE DONE.
Not everything can be inclusive. Not everything should be inclusive. Being inclusive is not always the top priority. You don’t want kindergartens to be inclusive of child molesters, for instance. You don’t want fire departments to be inclusive of pyromaniacs. You don’t want hospitals to be inclusive of infectious diseases. You don’t want grocery stores to be inclusive of mold. You don’t want your living room to be inclusive of everyone who walks by. The exceptions are endless. We don’t have to include men who say they are women in everything for women – we don’t have to include them in anything for women.
The women and equalities minister has not yet published new guidance, which protects single-sex spaces, a year after a Supreme Court ruling defined gender as relating to biological sex in reference to the Equality Act.
She has been in talks with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), under its new chair Mary-Ann Stephenson, and while the guidance itself will not change, the regulator has been asked to include more examples of how organisations can be inclusive within the law.
Inclusive of what? Men? Why is there any need for examples of how men can be included in things for women?
A source with knowledge of the process said much of the discussion had been over the “tone” of the document, with a feeling it had been approached with the aim of excluding transgender people rather than finding inclusive ways of operating while also upholding the law.
Could that be because “transgender people” are the issue? As for finding inclusive ways, see above.
Leave a Reply