On and on and on it goes. Not taking no for an answer is the new “You’re not the boss of me!!”
…on how to ensure everyone in our borough, no matter their gender identity, can live a safe life, free to express and be themselves.
But it’s not about being themselves, is it. It’s about being not themselves. It’s about pretending to be those other people. In particular, it’s about men being not themselves, and in doing so, putting women in danger and/or taking what belongs to women. Bromides about being themselves are not useful when the entire issue is about being other people and taking their stuff.
The guidance from the EHRC, the equality watchdog for England, Scotland and Wales, provides practical advice for services, public bodies and associations on how they should interpret the 2010 Equality Act.
It applies to organisations as diverse as cafes, leisure centres, public toilets, domestic violence shelters, bowls clubs and many more.
The code says where it is proportionate for facilities, such as public toilets and changing rooms, or services like a rape crisis centre, to be single sex then only those of the same biological sex should use them.
This means, for instance, a trans woman, a person born a biological male who identifies as a woman, should not use women-only facilities. And a trans man should not use men only facilities.
That’s not really a “for instance”; it’s the whole thing. Yes, boys, this means that a man who claims to be a woman does not get to bounce into women-only facilities. The end. It’s really not complicated.
But the code also says it could amount to discrimination against a transgender person if they were forced to use services related to their biological sex. It says gender-neutral spaces are an alternative.
Then the code is bonkers. It’s not discrimination against, it’s just reality. Men are men. We wouldn’t be here otherwise.
Transgender people argue they should be able to use services that align with the way they identify and live their life, rather than their biological sex.
In response, campaigners including some women’s and gay rights groups say this undermines sex-based protections, particularly for women.
The way people live their lives is their business. The way women live their lives entails some precautions when it comes to men. The two sexes are not in the same place when it comes to life-changing events like pregnancy, rape, enslavement, and violence. It is not safe for women to agree that men can be women at all times and in all circumstances.
Many organisations have already made changes they say comply with the law and are in line with the code, such as the Women’s Institute and Girl Guiding, which had already said membership was for females.
But the deputy leader of Lambeth Council in London says the authority may refuse to implement the guidance, if advised it’s lawful to do so.
Green Party Councillor Natalie Kane told the Today programme: “For us it’s about people accessing services, and we’re worried people won’t feel they can”.
But she doesn’t mean people, does she. She means men. She means men who are pretending to be women. It’s interesting that she says “people” when she means men; it suggests that she knows it sounds bad if you say men. Saying “people” in this context is a red flag for demolishing women’s rights.
Leave a Reply