Advocating for gay men on the basis of biological sex and same-sex attraction. Monthly events in various cities. Conference in January. See website for calendar
This case isn’t about a single pub. It’s about whether gay men can be excluded by businesses for their lawful beliefs.
We’ve filed our claim but we still need support with legal costs.
If equality before the law matters to you, you can help here: https://t.co/EriSnljcOM
@SAshC_Opinions It’s not an appeal to tradition. It’s a statement of fact about how we understand the world.
Just because there were things in the past that were wrong does not mean that everything in the past was wrong.
For decades we managed to both understand what sex is and accommodate gender non-conformity (ie those who didn’t deny their sex but didn’t conform to stereotypes). Not least gay men.
Now we’re told an effeminate gay man is a woman, and that a woman can be a gay man.
#NoThankYou
When the new EHRC code of practice turns a conversation about women’s safety into gender policing, where does the line stop?
Nish and Coco are joined by LGBTQ+ activist and Trans Pride Brighton co-founder Sabah Choudrey to discuss on new episode out now.
We have a hearing in the High Court on 3rd and 4th November which will answer the question about whether the City of London’s policy is lawful.
Support our legal challenge:
https://t.co/fWHgQuL2UB
The post-truth era.
People like Stella say a thing as if it were true, then base their argument for/against something else on the premise that the original assertion is true.
They've moved beyond debating the original premise, so they see their subsequent points as infallible.
I'm going to marvel at the irony of both arguing that those of us concerned about the creep of SIs are ignorant of the legislative process set out in section 14 to lay the guidance before parliament which explicitly sets out the option of MPs to object and objecting to MPs using that process because scrutiny isn't required.
As I've told my constituents I think this is a matter for parliamentarians to rectify not the EHRC who are doing what they were asked to do. And if its ok with you I'm going to get on now with writing back to them!
This video is an attempt to explain the parliamentary processes being used to give the EHRC guidance legal status and why I think they are a problem in themselves. Am sure it’s not perfect but I hope it’s helpful in trying to navigate the acronyms and actions being taken.
The inclusion rainbow acronym people over on Instagram are not very happy that we’ve pointed out how it’s not very inclusive to wish an uncomfortable Pride Month to any "normal gays" and "LGB gays".
They don’t seem to get the irony or hypocrisy.
Is it unreasonable to think homosexuality should maintain a boundary of meaning same-sex attraction?
Is it unreasonable to think gay men should be able to exclude trans-identifying females from spaces and services tailored or intended specifically for same-sex attracted males?
One of the things you notice early on as a Civil-Law-trained lawyer in the UK is the massive importance that “reasonableness” plays in UK law. And then you look at anti-trans talking points and they are just so unreasonable. It just doesn’t add up
Gay men aren’t too keen on trans-identifying females in our spaces either.
Not the same physical threat, of course, but don’t underestimate how much of an ongoing problem TiFs are.
We've got a letter in @TheScotsman expressing our thanks to @msjlindsay for her work bringing the issue to public attention in Scotland.
https://t.co/3I1qCItNVg
There's an extreme existential paranoia and extinction fetish among the woke.
There's also the perpetual delusion that gay people have trans-identifying people to thank for our equality under the law.
Some things are not inclusive, Stella.
Being a gay man does not include being female.
Single-sex spaces and services do not include people of the opposite sex.
The entire point is that there are times and places that some people are excluded.
The new EHRC guidance on how to ensure equal rights of all to access basic services falls short of being inclusive or workable in the real world - I will continue to work with other MPs who recognise this to navigate how we change that.
Given how toxic discussion of trans rights has become am not going to respond to comments here because doubt will help anyone.
Posting this video so residents in Walthamstow know of my concerns and actions. Also want to flag to any Walthamstow resident who wants to talk my next open public forum for political debate is on Thursday 28th May at 7pm and all welcome - email my office to rsvp for venue details.
That’s great that you acknowledge the law is the law when it comes to the meaning of sex.
But no mention of gay / lesbian single sex spaces.
You may believe your last sentence, but do you also believe a trans-identifying female can be a gay man?
So because the safeguarding boundary isn’t 100% enforceable we should just ignoring it completely? Is that what you’re saying?
Would you say the same about age related boundaries?
(Actually, maybe best not answer that one 😬)
Toilets & changing rooms must be used on basis of biological sex, new guidance says
How will this be policed? It's impossible!
Already biological women who are deemed insufficiently feminine are being falsely accused of being trans & harassed. SHAME!
https://t.co/KQEy1fNgid