KarynA

Not the side I usually fall on, but am really troubled by implications of this for many trans people who will be at greater risk if they simply switch public bathrooms as currently constituted. I hope there is a way that women’s right to single-sex spaces can be delivered without putting others at greater risk

We’re being kicked out of Aruba Bar in Bournemouth

A French aid worker: “We found a mass grave in Gaza containing 300 bodies. Small children were killed with their hands tied behind their backs"

The argument that women need special protections rather than equality because of reproductive status and biology shows ignorance of the history of labour hire laws. Prior to equality legislation, so called “protective labour laws” for women were common in many countries. These laws restricted women’s hours of work, times of work (eg no night shift) and limited the types of jobs they could do based on reproductive status, family requirements and perceived physical disadvantage. There were often also “marriage bans” where women were automatically fired once married. This was still the case in eg teaching in the 1950’s and ‘60’s in Australia. Another example was the international ban on women in underground mining and from night work brought in by the International Labour Organisation. Say what you want about mining, but The Bread Act 1969 protecting women from shift work as a result meant women couldn’t be bakers in Australia. The Labour and Industry Act 1958 in Victoria dictated women couldn’t work under an Iron roof unless it had a ceiling or was lined. This precluded hiring women in many factories. And the Bread Act was just one of about 600 industrial awards in Australia that had “protective” provisions preventing women from working freely. Eg The Butchers determination 1978 said women were only allowed to work the cashier for safety reasons. The motive was ostensibly benevolent, but these laws were often used to guard against perceived threats to men’s jobs and income by limiting women in the workplace. They were also used as a rationale for wage inequality. Eg. A man’s wage was calculated on the assumption he may have to support a family, but a woman’s wages were calculated on the assumption that she was single and childless or she wouldn’t be working. Wages were also calculated on the basis that women’s different biology made them less productive and more prone to absenteeism than men. All of this caused sex-stereotyping in industries that shouldn’t be inherently gendered. Eg baking. Another example was giving women special status in apprenticeships in the 1970’s. Whereby men were held to an apprenticeship contract but women could dissolve an apprenticeship at any time to get married if they wanted, leading to reluctance to hire women. So special protections for women due to biological sex may *seem* like a good idea to people clueless about the workplace pre-equality legislation, but equality is far better.

I’ll never forgive Labour for their wholesale abandonment of the LGBTQ+ community. It’s astounding, but they are even worse than Thatcher’s rabidly anti-gay government. Those who continue to support Labour while claiming to be LGBT+ allies are in complete denial.

Fetishist "Saorsa-Amatheia" Tweedale (PCS Proud Chair & DWP official) is urging more men like him to 'get involved' so they can shape union policy and table motions that destroy women's rights.. This is how these men infiltrate trade unions, watch and learn...

This was one year ago today. Helen Joyce "Every one of those people is a huge problem to a sane world"