Wimpod

@ucu Equality is not negotiable for women and girls. We will not accept sex discrimination. Find another way to support men with trans identities that doesn’t infringe on the rights of females. WE DO NOT CONSENT to men in our safe spaces or sports.

@ucu Stop being a bunch of wankers. Keep men out of women’s spaces. And if these men had any respect they’d just STAY OUT!

You are a trade union. The new Code of Practice is not for employers! As well, of course, as complying with the Equality Act, you should be advising all your members that the provision of separate toilets/changing rooms (unless in a fully enclosed separate room) - based on BIOLOGICAL SEX - is a legal requirement for employers under the 1992 workplace regs. Just follow the law, FFS! lewissilkin.com/insights/2026/…

My thoughts on the @EHRC guidance laid yesterday; this is not about non-existent "rights". It is about the safety of women - mothers, sisters, wives, daughters. We men need to hear their voices. Virginia Woolf : "Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes". My intro on @TimesRadio yesterday: Where I live there are two different routes to and from the tube station. One, let’s call it Acacia Avenue, is quiet and residential. The other, London Road, is a busy major route with lots of traffic. At all times of the day, I automatically head for Acacia Road. It’s just much nicer. The women in my family, on the other hand, will never willingly make that walk after dark. They live with an anxiety that most men find it hard to imagine, and frankly, rarely think about unprompted. Last year 739,000 women were sexually assaulted in Britain. Virtually all such assaults - nine out of ten - are perpetrated by men. One in four women have been attacked at some time in their lives. Acacia Avenue is exactly the sort of place in which most women fear that they become vulnerable, and they are right. As the author Virginia Woolf once wrote " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes". I think this is the right context in which to understand the furore over the guidance being laid today by the government, over the meaning of the words man and woman when it comes to providing services and facilities in workplaces. Many men think this is about a rather arcane dispute about who gets to use what loo. For their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, it isn’t. In a previous life, as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I had a hand in writing this country’s equality laws, in particular the 2010 Equality Act. It never occurred to any of us that there could be any confusion or dispute over the meaning of the words man and woman. But it has taken a decade of campaigning, a Supreme Court judgement and now hundreds of pages of guidance to settle the issue. This is not about so called trans rights, which are completely unaffected by this guidance, since no-one has ever had the right to walk into a changing room reserved for teenage girls. What it does mean is that women and girls are guaranteed the protection they deserve, and that their safety, which we spent half a decade drafting law to ensure, is protected. But the whole business illuminates some serious issues in our politics. First that many of our institutions, in spite of the fact that they always knew what the right thing to do was, decided to ignore the fears of their women customers and employees, under pressure from noisy pressure groups. Instead, the people who were supposed to be the grown ups behaved as though the law said what campaigners wanted it to say, rather than what it actually said. They settled for what they hoped would be a quiet life. In a democracy, there’s little point in Parliament deciding anything if the law is then made an ass by activists intimidating bosses in companies, schools, universities and the media into doing something different. Second, at the heart of the campaign to undermine the Equality Act is an idea that we specifically rejected in 2010, so called self-identification. That is to say, that it should be up to the individual to decide whether they have what’s called a protected characteristic - are you male or female, are you black or white. The problem is that self-ID would destroy the operation of any law against discrimination. Look, it would almost certainly have been to my advantage as a young man to self-identify as a handsome, white public schoolboy. None of those things is true of me. And at various points I am pretty sure it’s been to my disadvantage. It is certainly statistically likely to have been to my disadvantage. But according to the logic of those who say that self-ID should be the rule and that anyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they are male or female, black or white or Asian, were I to complain about racial discrimination, it would be difficult for anyone prove that I’d been discriminated against because of my race since anybody to whom I’d lost out could just tell the courts that they too were black. I know that sounds like Alice in Wonderland but you can google the case where a chap, both of whose parents are white, insisted he should get money from the Arts Council because he so identified with the black struggle that he considered himself black, and everyone should accept his point of view. In the United States and Brazil exactly such outlandish claims have been made and people rewarded to the disadvantage of people actually born into minority families. I have even been told about firms who, when reporting their gender pay gaps have put men who just happen to like wearing dresses at weekends - nothing wrong with that, let me be clear - into the female column and told their women employees that they really haven’t got anything to moan about because statistically they are paid equally, and they should get back in their box. So today’s guidance isn’t just another tiresome chapter in culture wars. It is , I hope, a halt to the efforts to undermine one of the most important pieces of legislation on the statute book, by people who, for their own reasons, would prefer us to be living in the 1950s world of Mad Men.

Hi Emily, it’s the Equality Act that says single sex services can’t admit people of the opposite sex. The Code of Practice simply explains it to service providers. If you want services organised on the basis of gender identity not sex you need to advocate for a change in the law. There’d be a lot of opposition to that (including from me) because of the impact on women, including domestic abuse survivors. Happy to put you in touch with a specialist lawyer if you want to know more about the relationship between the law and guidance.

@Thelma_DWalker About the same amount of courage as a female nurse stating to her bosses that she doesn't want to change in front of a man.

‘Whiny’ A mentally ill woman was raped in the Maudsley hospital because her sex was ‘disappeared’. Is that ‘real’ enough abuse for you Marissa? But you say women are ‘whiny’ for complaining when it happens. Incredible.

@JamesKeeli20414 @CrunchAlias The entry level qualification for calling yourself a transwoman is to be a man. There isn’t a single woman on the planet who is a transwoman.

@diegocaleiro @One_Supernova I studied medicine for five years and I'm absolutely 100% certain that people can't change sex and, moreover, the word 'whatnot' is never used as part of a diagnosis.

@CrunchAlias these stunning and brave fellows regularly used the men’s room with the other men way back in the ancient 1980s👇 Dear men in ‘fancy dress’, you’ll be fine Hair metal paved the way for you 🤣

It's not enough to stop pretending men are women; you also have to stop pretending it’s complicated.

@tarmakademia @GreeneLouiseAus It would interesting to see if you are similarly selective in the studies that you are "tying together" to show women how it's really their own fault. 🧐

@tarmakademia @GreeneLouiseAus I'm not sure if it's possible to make your above conclusions from a piece like this. Which clearly states it's not systematic and consisted of a brief literature review and then the opinions of a small number of "stakeholders working in the space".

Years ago, while standing in court black and blue on domestic violence charges after defending myself against a man who nearly killed me, I met a lawyer from Redfern Legal Centre, Susan Smith. I told her, “I’m actually the perpetrator.” She looked at me in shock and replied: “Oh my God. I’ve got more like you.” That conversation led to a major report involving seven women across NSW who had all been severely assaulted by partners or ex-partners — and then charged by police for defending themselves. Some had thrown a toy. Some had thrown a shoe. None of the men were injured. Yet the women were arrested, charged, handcuffed, dragged to cells and treated like offenders while the men who assaulted them walked free. The report was reviewed and endorsed by the Ombudsman. And yet women are STILL being misidentified and criminalised today. This matters because it destroys lives. Before domestic violence, I had never even had a speeding ticket. Afterwards came PTSD, alcoholism, homelessness, suicide attempts, brain injury and eventually prison. That is why I am speaking publicly now. Not for sympathy. For truth. Because people need to understand what happens AFTER the violence — and how catastrophically systems can fail traumatised women. My latest piece:louiseelizagreene.substack.com/p/im-actually-…

The NHS put a mentally ill woman in a men’s psychiatric ward and she was raped within ONE HOUR. Do you understand now what a woman is and why that matters, Health Secretary @jamesmurray_ldn??

We now know Andy Burnham: -Provided £100,000 of taxpayer’s money to fund a group that helped children get puberty blockers -Believes men should have access to women’s toilets -Criticised the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex Labour pose a danger to women and children.

@BBCWorld Daughters. They're selling their tiny daughters to be sex slaves and your take is the man is the victim?! Vile. #ShameOnBBC #DefundTheBBC

@BBCWorld Wow.. Just when you think the BBC literally cant sink any lower. You are NEVER going to convince decent human beings that paedophilia is ok. No matter how many you produce, no matter how many stories you run in their favour or for sympathy. Fuck you.

@BBCWorld Little girls being raped is really hard on the fathers who sell them to be raped by old men. That's where you've gone with this? Does anyone at the BBC ever view women and girls as fully human? x.com/i/status/20561…

@BBCWorld Every single child sold on this story is a girl. The BBC does not question or even mention this. And portrays the fathers selling their daughters in an entirety sympathetic light.

@main_hunt97118 @BevJacksonAuth Las mujeres trans no existen. Son hombres que no aceptan la realidad de su cuerpo y que han socializado como señores. Basta de manipular el lenguaje