Karl Limpert

As you're here, you really should check out - she's very good at singing/dancing/acting

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins Top experts say one thing.

On everything else, you accept the arguments;

on something you have a view on, you object to.

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

a person walks into a shop.

Are they a shopper, or are they a shoplifter?

Why are these debates even necessary, even with less than 0.001% of people going into a shop being a shoplifter?

Can men not be trusted to

STAY OUT OF WOMEN-ONLY spaces?

That solves it all!

[Nate Higgins @natehiggins]

@KarlLimpert @Uma_Kumaran A masculine presenting person walks into a women’s bathroom. Are they a woman whose gender expression doesn’t match societal expectations, a trans man made to use the women’s bathroom, or a man with no reason to be there who might be aiming to do harm to women? How do you know?

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins I have a lot of respect for you, Nate; delighted to see you as Chair (will miss your contributions from the floor).

But on this subject, you've advanced NO ARGUMENT, just the "Supreme Court" 5 most senior justices, were wrong, and you are correct.

How can I argue nothing?

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins Thanks Nate.

"The supreme court is wrong." wasn't rude to our supreme justices, but observing similar is.

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins Are scientists wrong too?

Those clever people?

Do we not have global warning?

And did smoking never harm me? Can I smoke again?

Would love everyone to confirm the last point, that all the doctors & scientists were wrong!

Alas, clever people have spoken.

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins Then whoever is opposing guidance should instead be arguing for a SUPER supreme court, or whatever you think is necessary to change the judgments of the Supreme Court.

As obviously judges are wrong, those who don't like a judgment are right.

Always.

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@WaistcoatDave @natehiggins No-one is arguing the ease or otherwise.

They're arguing the LAW

Plain & simple

LAW

Not how easy or otherwise it is to break the law.

Only what the LAW is

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@WaistcoatDave @natehiggins no idea what this argument even is - can't make sense of the random words.

But remind me, why did Sandie Pegg or the Darlington Nurses need to bring tribunal claims?

Were they not "trans"?

Did they not actually infiltrate female-only spaces?

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins they didn't even say that.

They said the latter interpretation by some (Stonewall I believe initiated it), misinterpretation that spread like a virus was wrong.

And it was clarified as wrong when WOMEN challenged it.

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins No, I said NO LAWS have changed. so nothing has changed.

And therefore no reason to make a fuss suddenly, about a law that was debated & passed 17+ years ago.

Both SC & EHRC only interpret the law, explain it for their relevant audience

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins That's a completely different debate, Nate.

And has no relevance to the Code of Practice.

If people want to tear-up statute that's applied for decades, even more than a century for separate facilities, that's a new argument altogether...

but not the one being made by you.

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins 1) most women say they can, and I trust their judgment;

2) who would even try to tell the difference? Why does that matter?

3) if the law is clear, surely transwomen will respect the law - not try to pass as a woman, encroach on legal boundaries.

No man would ever do that!

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@natehiggins p.s. there is NO new "policy".

There is a law: Equality Act 2010
https://t.co/uuH3b4BX0u

It came into force 1 October 2010.

Ignore https://t.co/EIWzTkyf2m

There is new, optional guidance to advise people what the stalwart law says.

[stellacreasy @stellacreasy]

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.

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

People aren't checked or "policed" upon arriving at a store.

Respect for women's spaces should be enough to ensure they're women only.

Or the occasional abuser.

[Akua Reindorf KC @akuareindorf]

In any event, the question remains: why stop the Code of Practice?

Is it because (1) you think it’s unlawful, or (2) you think the law is wrong?

If you think the Code is unlawful, how does it depart from the EqA2010?

If you think the law’s wrong, how do you want it changed?

[Akua Reindorf KC @akuareindorf]

The negative SI process isn't being used just on this occasion for this Code of Practice. It’s the statutory process in ss.14(7)–(8) Equality Act 2006. And of course the Code itself isn’t a statutory instrument – it’s brought into force by an Order made under s.14(9)(b) EA2006.>

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

Seriously, @stellacreasy try watching a video even shorter: https://t.co/cVz8pNt8LC

[stellacreasy @stellacreasy]

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.

[Karl Limpert @KarlLimpert]

@stellacreasy https://t.co/cVz8pNt8LC

[Sonia Sodha @soniasodha]

I've written about the dishonesty of the MPs opposing the EHRC's Code of Practice on single-sex services

https://t.co/0dDN04Fx1e