won't be taking any prime minister seriously until they lay out a plan to make england better for people born post-1990. it's tiresome being expected to foot the bill for literally everyone else and getting increasingly little back for it
We chop and change Prime Ministers every two years because no one’s willing to accept the reality of the position the country finds itself in, and it becomes easy cope to keep blaming a central figure.
Was a queer teen under Section 28. I am not going back again, and i refuse to accept a world where a whole new generation of queer & trans kids go through what i did at their age.
We are not fucking doing this again.
I support trans rights because I look at what's happening, the moral panic, the fear and disgust, the media manipulation, the toxic political climate, the legal restrictions on people just trying to live - and I hear section 28, I hear Thatcher, I hear 80s/90s tabloid homophobia.
Very surprised @theipaper pushing this narrative but let's say it *yet again* for everyone at the back:
PIP is *not* an out-of-work benefit.
It is designed to help pay for the additional costs that come with having a disability.
'When I first watched the video – I wasn’t even angry or upset – I was actually jealous. Imagine this being your biggest problem in life,' writes Charlie Craggs✍️
Technically there have been protections in law for trans people to use toilets since 1999 but they've been using them longer than any of us have been alive.
If there was evidence trans women were a risk to women, we'd have 100 years of evidence right now.
It’s funny how every time a terf posts a video about how ‘terribly’ they were treated it’s just them screaming & shouting about toilets and genitals. Then there’s a very kind & polite person (usually a minimum wage worker) reminding them how to compose themselves in public.
Very clear that this guidance doesn't make anyone safer, but rather encourages harassment of both trans folks, & cis folks who don't conform to whatever gender-conforming standards TERFs have cooked up.
One important but underappreciated facet of this story is the way in which it represents the creeping Americanisation of British politics.
This country does not have US-style separation of powers. It is not the role of the Supreme Court - let alone quangos like the EHRC - to make sweeping policy changes on the basis of definitional quibbling.
If we had a government with any backbone, or any commitment to protecting the rights of this country's LGBTQ+ people, this entire saga would have been over in a single vote.
But instead, our government has wilfully abrogated its own constitutional responsibility because the Labour party has bought into the narrative that this whole debate is "toxic" and there's no way to come out ahead or meaningfully set the agenda. (i.e., they don't want to get yelled at by J. K. Rowling OR their own largely pro-trans activist base)
In time, I think we might look back on this incident as a moment of profound constitutional change, a signal that our legislators are increasingly willing to wash their hands of any remotely thorny issue - regardless of the long-term damage to the trust and authority of our parliament.