flog61.bsky.social
722 posts
10 followers
4 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Train Replacement Association?
comment in response to
post
You’ll have to tell me!
comment in response to
post
You accidentally didn’t answer the question: when the EHRC submitted to the Supreme Court that they believed sex included GRCs, was that a lie or was it truthful?
comment in response to
post
It’s criminally illegal to enter the toilets matching your gender identity? Has any crime been found on that basis thus far?
comment in response to
post
That’s what mixed-sex toilets are defined as in the workplace regs (and indeed the EHRC’s update).
comment in response to
post
Temporary Responsibility Allowance?
comment in response to
post
Mixed-sex facilities? I suppose
comment in response to
post
They didn’t repeat the statutory code’s claim that trans people should use the service matching their identity?
Why did the EHRC lie to the Supreme Court last year about sex including people with GRCs? Or does it not count as lying when GC people say the same thing?
comment in response to
post
That is legally incorrect. Employers can solely provide mixed-sex facilities if they wish - otherwise all cafes would be screwed.
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘knickermen’.
comment in response to
post
What are TRAs?
comment in response to
post
So Stonewall repeated the Statutory Code as passed by the Conservatives, Lib Dems and EHRC and that is ‘lying’?
Was Falkner’s EHRC, under GC leadership, ‘lying’ when it submitted to the Supreme Court last year that it thought people with GRCs counted as the sex on their GRC?
comment in response to
post
So it wasn’t actually caused by Stonewall lying to people, it was caused by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats, the 2011 EHRC and the 2024 EHRC lying to people?
comment in response to
post
What did I state that is incorrect? They objectively deleted that wording. The regulations referred to objectively do not solely apply to small businesses. The question of whether employers *must* provide single sex toilets is entirely separate to which single sex toilets trans people should use.
comment in response to
post
Great, I hope security are being reassuring
comment in response to
post
Hopefully no GC toilet police around?
comment in response to
post
The Statutory Code of Practice stated that trans people should use facilities matching their gender identity. It is fanciful to suggest that Stonewall controlled 1. The Conservative Party, 2. The Liberal Democrat and 3. The 2011 EHRC.
comment in response to
post
No. They quite literally deleted the sentence stating that employers are mandated to have single-sex facilities. It’s not only small businesses that can solely provide mixed-sex toilets; any can.
I am not being denied access to female-only spaces, I am not a trans woman.
comment in response to
post
Hopefully this time she will avoid harassing, discriminatory language such as calling transgender human beings a ‘cult’ as she did at the LSE talk. It will also be good for her to address the fact that, statistically, lesbians are incredibly supportive of trans access to single sex spaces.
comment in response to
post
That is incorrect. The explicitly deleted the sentence saying that employers *must* provide single-sex bathrooms. They added clarifications as to how they may lawfully provide mixed-sex bathrooms.
The law remains the same; but employers being *mandated* to provide single-sex toilets was never law.
comment in response to
post
Yes, but that’s for employees. So people visiting as visitors may still be able to be excluded. I know it’s ridiculous and incredibly harmful
comment in response to
post
The EHRC’s change is about employee toilets; Parliament is acting as a service provider in this context and so, unfortunately, the current EHRC guidance still applies
comment in response to
post
I am in awe of you and all attendees 👏🏻
comment in response to
post
Not ‘allowed’? I see far more people expressing views critical of trans human beings than supportive ones, nowadays
comment in response to
post
Men are statistically more likely to be gender-critical than women. If one says that gender-critical people are bigots, they’re labelling more men than women.
comment in response to
post
They have deleted the statement that employers must provide single sex toilets.
Employers could always only provide a mixed sex stall, like in almost every small cafe in the country.
comment in response to
post
That is false. Many employers only have a single mixed-sex toilet stall; that is not illegal. If it were, every Costa in the country would be in deep trouble.
I will trust the EHRC’s amendment.
comment in response to
post
I just didn’t know what you meant, it sounded like you were characterising transgender human beings as lecherous which is contrary to discrimination law
comment in response to
post
‘Trans types’?
comment in response to
post
It is not misleading to state that employers are allowed to solely offer mixed sex toilets. We must encourage more discussion, not try to shut it down by accusing those we disagree with of lying.
comment in response to
post
The update previously said employers have to provide single sex spaces; now they acknowledge they don’t.
comment in response to
post
Westminster is a service provider in this context, not an employer. GLP
is posting about the guidance for employers.
Accusing those who dare to hold different opinions to you of lying is a silencing tactic designed to make people scared to express their opinions. People should not be silenced.
comment in response to
post
That is not true, employers do not have to provide separate single sex facilities - indeed many only have one (mixed) toilet in total, see coffee shops for instance.
As to saying ‘nothing changed’, the text of the Interim Update changed whether you dislike that fact or not.
comment in response to
post
Why did they change the text of the update if the text of the update hasn’t changed?
comment in response to
post
Don’t worry, I understood :) in that case I don’t think they would count as separate rooms, due to the small gaps
comment in response to
post
Yes, but it has to be genuinely floor to ceiling - a small gap would make them non compliant (though most mixed changing rooms do have gaps in my experience…)
comment in response to
post
I don’t think they’d let it slide in the long term, but as a very visible example on Wednesday, I think they’d pretend they’re fine with it to gaslight people into thinking trans people are safe using the services not matching their gender
comment in response to
post
Terfs would just allow them to use the toilets and then say ‘see it works, they’re complaining about nothing’. They will be there and guarding the toilets
comment in response to
post
What’s their email? I’d like to write too
comment in response to
post
The new code of conduct won’t even apply to employers, there’s a different code for employers which they haven’t said they’re updating
comment in response to
post
Right, but legally that’s determinative. If Khelif’s original birth certificate says F then legally she is F.
comment in response to
post
I’m not referring to the minister’s statement, I’m referring to the Ststutory Code of Practice.
And I didn’t say it’s law either - I said that putting it all down to ‘trans activists misleading’ people is not reasonable. The EHRC and Government alike believed that people with GRCs were covered.
comment in response to
post
They infiltrated the Conservative parliament? Even the current EHRC, under gender-critical leadership, thought GRCs affected this.
comment in response to
post
Are there safeguards in place for this mass lobby re bathrooms? I’m concerned that, as it’s publicised, GCs will stalk attendees into toilets and report them etc
comment in response to
post
‘Deliberately or misguidedly’ seems harsh when the Parliament-approved Statutory Code specifically stated that trans people should generally be permitted to use services in line with their gender identity?
comment in response to
post
‘Respect and dignity’ has to start meaning something, at the moment it’s all platitudes. Labour needs to give specific detail on how that will work for trans people while their bathroom use is policed.
comment in response to
post
I am concerned that gender-critical activists will attend and stalk trans attendees into the bathrooms, as they did with Robin. Have you discussed this with parliament already and ensured adequate protection for trans attendees?
comment in response to
post
Being trans isn’t the same as depression and anxiety, according to people who actually have medical qualifications; hence it not being defined as a mental illness.
comment in response to
post
Are you a psychiatrist?
comment in response to
post
I don’t believe it’s classed by doctors as a ‘mental illness’
comment in response to
post
I don’t personally agree that the part of the guidance they quote in those screenshot actually does state that employers can choose to *only* provide gender-neutral facility; but I respect your view.