Toilets are the thin end of the wedge anyway I would say. Refuges, prisons and such are much more important

Yes absolutely

I see the trans activists were teaming up with say no to racism, to counter protest a save our children event in Manchester over the weekend.


Hurling abuse at C/A survivors. Calling them racists and Nazis.


Absolutely thick as ****, horrible, selfish nasty nasty people.

Those are the areas where "appearance" is irrelevant though as there will be documentation. It can be a simple legislative decision and that's that. Toilet-usage ultimately is impossible to MEANINGFULLY enforce, and depends entirely on social obedience.

Interesting shift

Also we must move the voting age to 26

All it requires is social norms to be returned to what they were 20 years ago, before the world turned to ****

It's a deliberate ploy to dumb down the law, keep focussing on bathrooms which no one is going to police ...even though apparently there will be gangs of vigilantes hanging around outside the ladies to ensure compliance :joker:

Prisons, Refuges, Sport, Employment this is where women will be protected

I agree-ISH things weren't perfect but in the places where it was good it was good enough, which sounds defeatist, but the quest for perfection can generate a backlash that ultimately makes things far worse for everyone - I think that's fairly clear to see. That's a difficult conversation to have with people though. "I know thing aren't perfect for you, I know you want them to be better, but pushing too hard and too fast will have the opposite effect".

It's a hard thing to accept, too.

No one is going to enforce it but there will be an inevitable panopticon effect (people will self-enforce because of fear of potential consequences). I'm not saying that means it should be different but I think for the collateral damage, it's fair to acknowledge that and have sympathy, whilst still saying "there's no better solution unfortunately".

That isn't a courtesy that always (or often) been afforded "from the other side", there yes has been a culture of "tough tits learn to love it :hee: " which obviously means a lot of that sentiment is going to come right back now, however "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" etc etc

Christine Jardine Lib Dems 🔶
@cajardineMP


I've taken time to consider the EHRC interim guidance and can find nothing
reasssuring except the fact that it's 'interim'. Still too many unanswered
questions and too many uncertainties. The Government needs to take the lead
and provide clarity


-----

Also Lib Dems who receive sizeable donations from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, makers of puberty blockers

I don't think it's anything to laugh about.


Transmen will now have to use the women's toilets.


So we are going to get muscular, bearded masculine looking women going into the women's toilets..


What if one of them follows a woman woman into the toilet, and that woman's six ft four hulking boyfriend sees this bearded masculine person follow in behind her. What's he going to do when he sees that?



In my eyes this is going to increase the attacks on biological women.

That is literally not going to happen... if a transman is bearded there is zero chance he is going into a female toilet, he will either use the Mens as normal or the Disabled facility, it is quiet likely transmen use the third option anyway, but as we don't hear a peep from transmen we just don't know

how many transmen do we see interviewed on Marches...?

But the muscular bearded transmen won't want to break the law, so as a woman(defined by law) she or he will have to use the women's,or risk being placed on the sex register.

Stop being so dramatic, I heard a transwoman yesterday say she was going to continue to use the ladies...pretty sure transmen will do the same with the mens, if they ever used them, because honestly that must the be worse part of being a man ...using the mens

So no blood donation from gay men? No 2007 Equality Act? No adoption for same sex couples in Scotland? No gay marriage? No strides towards legislations to ban conversion therapy?

Sorry, did we ask for too much with the above? Yikes!

I don't think anybody is saying that.

Nope

On reflection I think "20 years ago" is extreme, the issues really weren't apparent until maybe only 5-7 years ago, when there started being an expectation of "unquestioning self-ID" and established gender ideology being completely rewritten. That's not to say that everything was perfect - just that the direction that was taken at that point was, ultimately, detrimental. There's no real argument that it wasn't to everyone's detriment. Where we are now is awful, precarious and (socially) yes I would say worse than 20 years ago.

Returning to "the societal norms of 20 years ago" would remove a lot of advances that came about in the last 20 years. These advances are achieved through societal pressure and change in societal attitudes.

Author Andrew Doyle:

If any proof were needed of the power accumulated by activists, consider how
many companies and institutions have claimed they’ll ignore the Supreme Court
ruling on sex in the Equality Act.

Such is their narcissism and entitlement that they genuinely think they’re above
the law.

The Times Newspaper Poll:

The sad unelectable Greens are backing the 4% :skull:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gpmwc4hW...jpg&name=small

I think there is merit to say society as a whole is more at war with one another than 20 years ago and that does come from both sides of the political spectrum - anger and vengeance from the left and scaremongering and facism from the right. Most people however sit somewhere in the centre - left or right of it - and get on just fine with those around them.

I think social media makes things worse and emboldens everyone from all sides, however I think that extreme rhetoric is not present with most day-to-day in real life.


However, from a LGBT perspective, things are better than 20 years ago when we weren't able to adopt or marry or give blood.

However that is not to say I think tides aren't turning. I do think there are, from certain corners, of as you mentioned above, perceptions that LGBT people have "asked for too much", but the very notion of that being a legitimate concern is gross. The world is not straight people's to govern and decide how much rope they give us.

They don't get to throw down a ladder and expect LGBT people to stay on the 2nd step while they stand on the 4th, and then cry when we also want to be on the fourth alongside them.

Truth can be dramatic sometimes for you, I get that!


But if they are found in the wrong toilets they will be going on the sex register if it's a repeat offence, Mark my words.

This isn't a simple fix. People are forgetting the flip side of this andate forgetting the women who id as men, or perhaps not bothered as much about them as they do your day to day woman...perhaps they see them as freaks or something, I dunno:shrug:

I agree in principle other than when the things that are being requested have safeguarding implications (which there have been) or when what's being demanded is a limitation or ending of open academic discourse (which has happened)... and I also object to the frequent gaslighting that those things have NOT happened. Anyone in even vague proximity to the psychology/sociology surrounding this knows it's a dumpster fire.

I'm genuinely all for people living the life they want to live as far as is possible, but individual "I feels" will never take precedence over robust academic evidence... And that's part of what people want.