Clare Page : No Secret Lessons

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the United Kingdom’s newly appointed Health Secretary who lacks the biological understanding of a primary school child, as he believes “trans women are women”. This Labour government is turning the UK into the laughing stock of the world.

So, when it comes to rights and protections under the Equality Act from the risk of sexual assault, exhibitionism or voyeurism by men in women’s toilets or changing rooms, it turns out some women are more Equal than others! If you’re a traumatised Muslim you have more grounds than other women to establish discrimination or harassment when faced with what is actually a universally applicable threat to all women when cross dressing men are allowed into their toilets or changing space. This is the perfect exposure of how utterly stupid the Forstater case was and how unprincipled, divisive and identitarian the EA2010 is in the first place. Women have to throw all their ‘beliefs’, traumas and personal needs (from religious covering in this case to menstrual flooding in the Peggy case) just to ensure the obvious, universal ‘wrong’ of unacceptably intrusive behaviour by men is stopped - not because it’s just obviously wrong, but because it upsets some special characteristic or weakness they have to emphasise. This is back-to-front, demeaning, two tier law that needs to go. It creates endless cases for women who must fight on the back foot, inventing reasons for discrimnation relating to their identity, trying to prove they have a special protection to be safe, whilst lawyers get rich representing them against ideologically possessed organisations prepared to hold out against the SC ruling. The idea is that eventually most workplaces will get the idea that it’s not worth the compensation risk and will reestablish single sex spaces. But this discounts that some orgs are ideologically possessed, have deep pockets and wish to drag this out. Why on Earth should one more woman have to go through this nonsense of making up reasons why she should be safe?

So, when it comes to rights and protections under the Equality Act from the risk of sexual assault, exhibitionism or voyeurism by men in women’s toilets or changing rooms, it turns out some women are more Equal than others! If you’re a traumatised Muslim you have more grounds than other women to establish discrimination or harassment when faced with what is actually a universally applicable threat to all women when cross dressing men are allowed into their toilets or changing space. This is the perfect exposure of how utterly stupid the Forstater case was and how unprincipled, divisive and identitarian the EA2010 is in the first place. Women have to throw all their ‘beliefs’, traumas and personal needs (from religious covering in this case to menstrual flooding in the Peggy case) just to ensure the obvious, universal ‘wrong’ of unacceptably intrusive behaviour by men is stopped - not because it’s just obviously wrong, but because it upsets some special characteristic or weakness they have to emphasise. This is back-to-front, demeaning, two tier law that needs to go. It creates endless cases for women who must fight on the back foot, inventing reasons for discrimnation relating to their identity, trying to prove they have a special protection to be safe, whilst lawyers get rich representing them against ideologically possessed organisations prepared to hold out against the SC ruling. The idea is that eventually most workplaces will get the idea that it’s not worth the compensation risk and will reestablish single sex spaces. But this discounts that some orgs are ideologically possessed, have deep pockets and wish to drag this out. Why on Earth should one more woman have to go through this nonsense of making up reasons why she should be safe?

So, when it comes to rights and protections under the Equality Act from the risk of sexual assault, exhibitionism or voyeurism by men in women’s toilets or changing rooms, it turns out some women are more Equal than others! If you’re a traumatised Muslim you have more grounds than other women to establish discrimination or harassment when faced with what is actually a universally applicable threat to all women when cross dressing men are allowed into their toilets or changing space. This is the perfect exposure of how utterly stupid the Forstater case was and how unprincipled, divisive and identitarian the EA2010 is in the first place. Women have to throw all their ‘beliefs’, traumas and personal needs (from religious covering in this case to menstrual flooding in the Peggy case) just to ensure the obvious, universal ‘wrong’ of unacceptably intrusive behaviour by men is stopped - not because it’s just obviously wrong, but because it upsets some special characteristic or weakness they have to emphasise. This is back-to-front, demeaning, two tier law that needs to go. It creates endless cases for women who must fight on the back foot, inventing reasons for discrimnation relating to their identity, trying to prove they have a special protection to be safe, whilst lawyers get rich representing them against ideologically possessed organisations prepared to hold out against the SC ruling. The idea is that eventually most workplaces will get the idea that it’s not worth the compensation risk and will reestablish single sex spaces. But this discounts that some orgs are ideologically possessed, have deep pockets and wish to drag this out. Why on Earth should one more woman have to go through this nonsense of making up reasons why she should be safe?

It is importantly not to comment on a case without reading the judgment carefully, which this poster hasn’t done. If she had she would realise that the judgment was not decided as she suggests it was.