@LGBTQPrideUK@thefempire50@mrstomlinstan@70hostess We don’t need to sweetie, we just crowdfund and go through the courts whereas you gather to throw piss over yourselves, threaten women or smash windows!
@EllieChowns Do you understand that even without the guidance you must abide by the law? All means if you want to make yourself look like a clown carry on but it makes no difference
@hightreebud@kathmurray1@LoveWestLothian Unbelievable that girls under 12 years old dealing with menstruation for the first time were required to go to separate toilets - and @LoveWestLothian thought this was a price girls had to pay for their utter folly in building mixed sex toilets blocks with no privacy for girls
Wrong decision. Who are these members! They need an education in biology and the law.
What is absurd about this - in case anyone hasn't been there - is that there are 3 ponds. Womens, Mens and Mixed. Anyone who identifies as a different gender can use the mixed pond. So it is not as if anyone is currently excluded.
The reality of this decision is that yet again, it is women who are expected to give up their rights to get changed and swim in peace. So this policy is the opposite of "inclusive". Unless you are a man, in which case, as ever, you get to do what you like.
A hundred years of this very special and much valued women only swimming tradition being chucked out in the guise of "inclusivity".
I contributed to the consultation but clearly was not listened to.
@Keir_Starmer I’m a constituent & a LP member, please get your team up to speed, particularly @NadiaWhittomeMP & @labourlewis who clearly don’t understand the difference between law & guidance! It’s embarrassing
I've now seen a couple of the responses-to-constituents from MPs who signed the EDM opposing the EHRC Code. Suggest early signatories at least have been briefed with some familiar talking points and errors of fact:
-Strong focus on only one group with a Protected Characteristic (I'll leave you to guess which).
-Invoking costs as a barrier (would they do this for anything else?)
-Misrepresentation of the Relevant Equality Impact assessment with the idea of trans people being denied any service. (Rather ignores the fact that the Code itself deals with this issue and that the EIA is actually v positive about the clarifications the revised Code brings.)
-Invoking the spectre of people being challenged for not confirming to gender stereotypes.
-Vaguely specified concerns about lack of clarity and legal risk.
-Confusion between the Code and the law it represents (thus denying service providers a tool for improving clarity).
-Lack of understanding of what an EDM actually can achieve.
-A sudden desire for discussion about the conflicts between the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act. There is a court judgement that might help with this...
@miffythegamer@SexMattersOrg@DerryBanShee@guardian We shall let the religious women, who have self excluded, know that they must cope & seethe Miffy. Or then again, we shall just have to go to court again. Such a waste of money & effort because a few male people won’t use the mixed pond, male entitlement alive & kicking.
@TheTransTroll@SexMattersOrg@DerryBanShee@guardian If religious women are self excluding because their religion excludes them from
Swimming with TW(males), who could use the mixed or the men’s, how is that inclusive of them? Religion is a protected characteristic too?
Two shocking points were revealed in this judgment.
First, to their utter shame @LoveWestLothian actually submitted in their defence that they had special period toilets for girls. >>
Did you ever think you'd live to see the day where a WOMAN leading the largest Union in the UK with the largest number of women members would argue against women's right to single sex spaces in the workplace?
No me neither.
Find a better union ladies.
Also the guidance doesn't cover workplaces, it's not even relevant, that's covered by separate legislation. Absolute clowns.
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
@cityoflondon Could you explain how it is inclusive for women whose religion, a PC under EA2010, excludes them from swimming with transwomen (males)
Whose rights will you uphold, hers or the male who could use the mixed or men’s pond?
This is deeply troubling.
I hope New York will step away from this move!
I wrote about the push to eliminate the word “mother” and mother-related terminology in law and policies; how it is linked to the devaluation of motherhood and women overall.
I will be presenting this report on “violence against mothers” to the UN Human Rights Council in a few weeks.
@JennyAscendant@mrstomlinstan Is there a list of acceptable evidence of how someone has lived in their “acquired gender”?
For a TW is it doing the washing up & ironing for a week, showing a receipt for the knickers you bought at M&S?
For a TM is it putting a flat pack together, knowing the offside rule?
@AlexZurClark Nice sentiment but let me know what you think….
3 swimming ponds on Hampstead Heath, M, W & mixed.
T women (male) are using the women’s pond so some religious women have self excluded & now have nowhere to swim.
T women could use the mixed or M
Whose rights win?