John Simmonds

Atheist, secular humanist, not cis. Old school Biologist.

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@DutchAdkins @rev_deluxe @Z3roBl1ss @Renevelation You cannot deduce world view from atheism. I have met left wing atheists, right wing atheists, LGBTQI atheists, homophobic atheists, racist atheists here on twitter. The only thing we have in common for certain is the absence of belief in gods.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

Polite notice to schools still breaking the law by failing to provide single sex bathrooms: you will be sued and you will lose 👇

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@DreyfusJames @MissLauraMarcus 👏👏

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@DrNeilStone You don't know what time zone they are in.
TBF neither do they 😉

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@DreyfusJames @latsot Sorry I have a one-way ticket to the 70s.

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@IgorRriabov @RichardDawkins Gibberish!

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@MinnOrchia @RichardDawkins The more I read your posts the more I suspect a parody account.

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@JenniferB812 The sine qua non of identifying as a "transwomen" is to be male.

[Hennie Inglis 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 🇳🇱 💚🤍💜 @HennieInglis]

@TheGreenParty @rachelmillward Why do you and the Greens hate women? You're lunatics.

The EHRC guidance simply confirms the law as it stands -- the Equality Act 2010 and the Workplace Act 1992.

No males in females spaces. These sexual fetishist invaders of female spaces are a huge threat to women and girls.

[Labour Heartlands @Labourheartland]

Let’s stop pretending this is about toilets.

That is the smallest doorway into a much bigger argument.

This is about women’s rights: the right to assemble as women, organise as women, speak as women, and be represented as women.

It is about dignity, privacy, safeguarding, safe spaces, fair sport, single-sex services, hospital wards, refuges, changing rooms and the basic right of women to set boundaries without being smeared for it.

The toilet door is only the symbol.

The real battle is whether women are still allowed to have anything of their own.

https://t.co/1pN4Wg68C3

[Bev Jackson @BevJacksonAuth]

Every MP who signs the motion tabled by @NadiaWhittomeMP to disapprove the “Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, public functions and associations” is displaying embarrassing ignorance of the law - as well as profound disrespect for the rights of women and girls, and of lesbians and gay men.

Do they even know that the “lesbian interveners” at the Supreme Court helped to secure the rights of homosexual women and men - which would otherwise have been lost?

The Supreme Court established that under the Equality Act, a lesbian is a biological woman who is sexually attracted to other biological women.

It rejected the vile idea that a man bearing a piece of paper with an F can be classified as a lesbian. That was incoherent, the court ruled.

Not just incoherent but a homophobic atrocity. So thanks a bunch, Nadia et al., that you want to turn the clock back on that ruling.

You know perfectly well (or am I assuming too much?) that the EHRC guidance is not the law. It simply helps service providers, associations and those overseeing public functions to apply the law.

But it sends a signal, doesn’t it - it tells people where you stand. You stand in the mud.

Your motion is not just a profound betrayal of so many of your constituents, it’s political madness. @Jonathan_Hinder is right: if you don’t snap out of it, the Labour Party is dead.

[ukvillafan @ukvillafan]

I am no longer surprised at the degree of intellectual vacuity contained in your posts, but this one is especially worthy of comment.

“We have a responsibility to our trans constituents to resist it.”

Actually, you have a responsibility to your female constituents to fully support it. Yjis is because it is a code of conduct specifically written to assist in the effective implementation of settled law.

“The Code will exclude trans people from services and facilities that they have long used without issue ”

The Code will do no such thing. This statement is either a deliberate lie or a further example of legislative incompetence. Both explanations are probably in play here.

Trans people are not ‘excluded’ from any services. They are specifically included in all services provided based on their birth sex. There isn’t a single-sex service that trans people are excluded from.

If a trans individual has previously used services designated for the opposite sex, they have done so in contravention of the law, in which single-sex services have always been segregated by reference to biological sex. It is the responsibility of the trans individuals concerned, and those who have been advising them erroneously; if they have been acting unlawfully.

It is false to claim that these historical abuses of single-sex spaces has passed ‘without issue’. There are countless examples of detriment to women and girls and a long history of trans infiltration being challenged.

There is no evidence that using correct-sex facilities will make trans individuals more likely to be the victims of violence.

Trans individuals will not be ‘pushed out of public life’ as they have the right to access public facilities appropriate to their sex.

“It ushers in an era of enforced segregation for trans people.”

This is another lie. Any ‘segregation’ that occurs is a) the result of the proper interpretation of the Equality Act and b) based on the material reality of sex. It only requires any ‘enforcement’ due to the insistence of, in particular, trans identifying men that they are entitled to ignore the law, transgress women’s boundaries and infiltrate female spaves for the purpose of validating their identities and exercising their fetishes.\

”The Code represents a profound rollback of rights,”

This is also a lie. No ‘rights’ have been ‘rolled back’. The Code implements the law as clarified in the For Women Scotland Case, which found that it has ALWAYS been the law that single-sex spaces are segregated by biological sex, meaning that it has never been a ‘right’ for a male person (whatever his ‘identity’) to invae and colonise female spaces.

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@jakonian The sine qua non of being a "transwoman" is to be male.

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@rms432 @TheFamousArtBR Try claiming that you are a Rastafarian and that bag of herb is part of your religion.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

I see Nicola Sturgeon is once again complaining that I posted a picture of myself wearing a T-shirt with her name on it and the legend 'Destroyer of Women's Rights.' Apparently this didn't 'elevate the debate.'

Is there a clinical term for an individual who has extreme thinness of skin when it comes to their own perceived hurts, coupled with a rhino-hide when it comes to the fear and suffering of others?

I'm thinking in particular of the two women Isla Bryson raped, who had to watch their First Minister squirm and smirk on TV as she tried to avoid admitting he was a man; of the five survivors of male violence who were ready to give evidence to Sturgeon's committee on gender self-ID, but were told to put their concerns in writing while seventeen trans-identified people appeared in person; of the mother of a young girl with a learning disability who campaigned against self-ID because she wanted her daughter to be guaranteed same sex intimate care, should she need it (the mother was presumably one of those female opponents Sturgeon calls 'shrill' and 'hysterical' in her memoir); of the ten-year-old girl sexually assaulted in a public bathroom by a 6'5" paedophile who served his jail sentence in a women's prison because he called himself 'Katie'; of Sandie Peggie, forced to discuss her own menstrual history in public to justify not wanting to undress in view of a 6ft straight cross-dresser in the nurses' changing room; of Marion Millar, dragged into court because she tweeted a picture of suffragette ribbons; of the Scottish rape crisis centres reliant on government funding who were pressured to admit trans-identified males into their services if they wanted funding to continue.

When Sturgeon refers to an 'elevated debate', she means a discussion that takes place within a tiny, smug bubble from which regular women suffering real life consequences of her policies are firmly excluded. These faceless ants are loftily dismissed as bigots, or, to be more precise: 'transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, maybe racist as well.'

Nicola, you hated the T-shirt picture because you couldn't ignore it, as you'd ignored so many other women trying to make you understand their concerns. Appeals to your empathy, your intelligence and your compassion all failed. Apparently the only way to get through to you is through your vanity.

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@ApsanaBegumMP Virtue signalling nonsense!

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@unisontheunion I thought you were a Trades Union, silly me.

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

This 👇

[Duncan Bannatyne @DuncanBannatyne]

I am guessing but maybe because only trans women walking around the changing rooms swinging penises upsets the biological women

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@asstart74 I see you've had your arse handed to you far more eloquently than I'd have managed.

[Janet Murray @jan_murray]

The Guardian has commissioned a man to write about why he should be allowed to use women’s single sex spaces.

‘We need to restore our rights,’ he claims - as if this was ever lawful.

He also claims women ‘welcomed ‘him into their single sex spaces.

Well not this one, Sunshine.
The majority of women and girls want single sex spaces.
And those women who ‘welcomed’ you into their spaces cannot consent on behalf of other women.

So much gaslighting.

Link to read article in comments 👇

[John Simmonds @johnsimmonds01]

@micheal_olainn I see you've had your arse handed to you far more eloquently than I'd have managed.