Labour has rolled back protections for trans individuals. The Under Secretary of State for Equalities has just opened the door for vigilantism against trans individuals. UK has dropped in terms of LGBTQIA+ rights under this government. This performative politics doesn't match Labour's own policies.

btw really disappointed in the greens for simply not bothering to show up. that's really scummy.

so basically ministers from all parties spent the day questioning @bphillipsonmp.bsky.social about her jim crow style segregation laws and all she could say were two things. 1) talk to the ehrc. 2) i respect trans ppl. honest! nah it's all on YOU bridgette. not the ehrc. this is *your* policy.

Vikki Slade Lib Dem MP: 'State sponsored repression' - highlights absurd double bind of trans MP. 'Where is the human rights/privacy of trans ppl in all of this'? Minister: Sex policing must be done sensitively. Waffle waffle 'sensitively and proportional'

Plaid Cymru" Liz Savile-Roberts - expresses support for trans people in Wales. Says guidance is not 'workable'. What assurances can she give UK gov will support Welsh gov to remain inclusive Minister: Trans people are valued across our 'whole country' 💀

Alex Sobel: Concerned that rights enjoyed by trans people since 2004 are now gone. Talks about human rights analysis of guidance and complexities re marriage Minister: Go and talk to the EHRC yourself

Cat Eccles - MP, talks about how dangerous/exclusionary guidance is and how orgs have warned against it. Asks for debate/vote on guidance. Minister: waffle waffle no

Stella Creasy - says it’s problematic lack of scrutiny due to negativel procedure- says guidance doesn’t work for the real world. Talks about impracticality of sex policing for facilities and how ending women’s toilets will be easier to avoid this problem

Tom Gordon Lib Dem MP - calls out Tory transphobia - and calls out Labours overriding of Parliamentary committee to appoint EHRC chair!!! YES

@nadiawhittomemp.bsky.social : ‘EHRC guidance is complete failure’ talks about it locking trans people out of public life. Highlights risks of sexual violence towards trans women and all trans/GNC people, calls for guidance to be withdrawn and new trans inclusive legislation

Parliamentary debate on Code of Practice - @sarahowen.org.uk describes code as ‘fundamentally trans exclusionary’ and cites worry of drop in European LGBT rankings

The idea that I can only be discriminated against as a woman by someone who doesn’t realise I am trans is the state seeking to force me into a new closet. To insist we are unprotected at law if we are proudly out is to seek to destroy the very possibility of pride.

I'm not sure "hey, we're not just banning trans people from toilets, we're also banning them from vital support after they've been sexually assaulted or raped" is exactly the flex The Guardian seem to think it is. Fucking vile humans.

"Children of those on care worker visas, who came legally before rule change, told to leave even if parents can stay" abolish the home office

The Labour Party decided to kick off LGBT Pride month by having their new Health Secretary disavow his previous support for trans rights and spout transphobic rhetoric. Labour is irredeemable. Its defeat can't come soon enough. archive.today/jfMFG

“Dignity for trans people” while denying that being trans is real in a meaningful sense is hate the sin love the sinner nonsense. What IS being trans to James Murray I wonder?

Justin Webb opening with this issue as *the point of introduction* for the new Health Secretary is also very revealing.

You can’t just throw the phrase “dignity for trans people” like a magic spell into the end of your diatribe about how trans women aren’t women. It is fundamentally undignifying to tell trans women they aren’t women! This isn’t difficult.

I’m not being funny about this.If you think trans people deserve dignity but that they shouldn’t have to be accepted as trans in schools or bathrooms or workplaces or interpersonal conversations or on the Holyrood website, even if they have a GRC-what is “being trans” to you? What are you affirming?

Guardian: This brutal new drama about the resurfacing of homophobia which is scary, and transphobia, which we agree with 😉

The transphobic wave worldwide is about defining and enshrining [hegemonic which in the West manifests as white] womanhood, which places heavy emphasis on mandatory heterosexuality, reproduction, and acquiescing to being exploited as such with a smile. Trans women are being made an *example*.

On this: I’m a tall Brown woman with a strong jawline. A whole white woman accused me of being a man in a public toilet the other day. I didn’t correct her because my being trans or cis was not the point. The point was she felt entirely comfortable and confident doing that to someone in a TOILET.

The new EHRC Code of Practice is not fit for purpose. It does not provide clear guidance or do enough to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is not compatible with longstanding British values. @EdDavey.LibDems.org.uk and @MarieCGoldman.bsky.social have written to Bridget Phillipson. ⬇️

"It's not genocide until it's over" is the prevailing idiocy every minority must hear as their backs are pushed to the wall

So, SexMatters' latest campaign is literally: - Encourage small claims courts if businesses try to stop you manifesting your GC beliefs - Produce a guide to grifting companies out of money if they stop you: - Misgendering - Ranting about provision - Hate speech* against transgender people

Juliet Jacques on Labour's Section 28: "Civil disobedience and trans organisation will flush this contemptible code down the toilet of history, and we can push for a full inquiry into how the EHRC became captured by transphobic fanatics and ask how we can safeguard such bodies [...] in future."

“Move to the left” vs “Move to the center” is already a framing that coddles people who want Dems to move rightward, and yet voters under thirty still want Democrats to move left on trans issues by wider margin than *any* demographic wants them to move right.

It all goes back to the Gamergaters. MAGA saw the online engine of incels and losers and just folded it into what "masculinity" is. You can be an undatable failure, but as long as you hate women and minorities, you're an alpha now.

in general I think popular discourse confuses "vices that were downplayed, excused, or ignored for men's benefit" with "traits that were upheld as masculine virtues" and this phenomenon is part of why: these particular men not only have few if any virtues but single out their vices for broadcasting

periodic reminder that bill de blasio basically stopped fighting with the nypd after they kidnapped his daughter and publicly threatened her you tell them no and they tell you they're the ones with the guns

This is 100% true and it's a reason leftists and anarchists are so anti cop. They are genuinely a threat to democratic governance in authoritarian regimes. The NYPD is a hostile occupying force that kidnapped De Blasios daughter and doxed her. He did nothing about it.

JK Rowling constantly uses how trans people are protected under the Equality Act as an excuse to how trans people aren't persecuted while her besties are openly strategising ways to remove trans people's protections from the Equality Act

People who get a GRC have had to hand over more private information, medical and beyond, including psychological sign-off, spanning years. Most other people in society share less in their entire lifetime. We aren't permitted privacy, let alone dignity, despite not being a threat to anyone.

As predicted, they intend to bring the GRA down. They want to ban transition. They want us dead.

Here's the former EHRC commissioner gleefully pondering whether trans people should have any form of legal protection. BTW, "biological sex" is as real as "biological race." It means whatever TERF/MAGA ideology says it does, at any given time, for any given case.

Happy to be corrected but I don't think there's anything in our electoral reform bill, or existing law, that stops a foreign billionaire from using his $44 billion machine to drive UK voters to the Far Right. And that's all sorts of wrong.

An entire class of people that seem to be hired based more on their willingness to protect a balance sheet than protect the underlying purpose of their institutions, the sector or employees.

If I hear one more university leader say they're making "tough decisions" about redundancies or worsening our employment conditions, I will scream. They are not making tough choices, they're making the easiest decisions in the world. Tough decisions would be fighting the inevitability of job losses

5/ The Supreme Court’s judgment simply makes no sense. Either they are wrong about “privacy and comfy” and “enabling exclusion of others”; it’s comfy only and self-exclusion only. This kind of asymmetric protection and denial of protection cannot be justified on the basis of “Biological Sex”.

4/ Conversely, if a trans man is uncomfortable with changing in front of a woman or seeing a woman changing, he is not entitled to object to the woman’s presence. In both cases, the cis person is entitled to object. This is obviously discriminatory and is an Article 8 and 14+8 violation.

3/ However, if a trans woman is uncomfortable with changing in front of a man or seeing a man changing, she is not entitled to object to the man’s presence, but only a person of the opposite “Supreme Court” sex. I personally am very uncomfortable with seeing men’s naked bodies. I have no recourse.

2/ According to them, there is some sort of extremely strong “privacy and comfy” protection under the Equality Act that only a cis person can exercise. Under paragraph 27(6)(b), privacy is about not having to change in front of others; comfort is about not having to see others changing.

1/🧵 I keep making quoted post... but can I present yet another point... Let’s pretends the Supreme Court and the EHRC is right, entirely right. Schedule 3 still gives rise to an incompatibility with the Convention.

Clean energy *is* cheaper energy!

Our complaint about Sex Matters to the EHRC may be of some help to you: "It is irresponsible to suggest that service providers...must treat as if in good faith a request to play out a scenario that may be the masturbatory fantasy of a man who enjoys breaching women’s boundaries"

We're complaining to the Charity Commission about Sex Matters describing women who are trans using women's spaces as "deviants". The language is unacceptable (and the statement is wrong in law). We're looking for other examples of it (staff or Trustees) using inflammatory language. Share below?

More than 60% of Australian kids are still using social media despite the ban. Because prohibition rarely works. We know this. mollyrosefoundation.org/more-than-60...

Sex Matters formally calling trans people “deviants” The Supreme Court decision on a law intended to grant trans people equality was explicitly based on Sex Matters’ arguments. When will Serious Legal People stop insisting it was in any way a sensible decision? It’s caused a nasty unworkable mess.

Article from a prominent GC campaigner in The Critic today, decrying the guidance for not going far enough: "The only thing that will reverse the state we are in is to overturn the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and remove “Gender Reassignment” as a protected category in the Equality Act."

Anas Sarwar has appointed Carol Mochan, who called the recent EHRC guidance which deeply harms trans people's ability to participate in society "a victory for basic common sense", as Scottish Labour's equality spokesperson. Scottish Labour continues to betray its LGBT rights supporting membership.