正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

🏳️‍🌈 Happy Pride Month. I will not stand by while anyone is excluded from participating in public life because there are no facilities they can safely use. Not now. Not ever. The Conservative Party would rather pander to a MAGA-style culture war than challenge poor guidance. The Labour Government...

121,670 次观看 • 4 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

35 条评论

The Heartlands Tribune 的头像
The Heartlands Tribune4 个月前

Let’s stop pretending this is about toilets. That is the smallest doorway into a much bigger argument. This is about women’s rights: the right to assemble as women, organise as women, speak as women, and be represented as women. It is about dignity, privacy, safeguarding, safe spaces, fair sport, single-sex services, hospital wards, refuges, changing rooms and the basic right of women to set boundaries without being smeared for it. The toilet door is only the symbol. The real battle is whether women are still allowed to have anything of their own.

Renée Hoenderkamp 的头像
Renée Hoenderkamp4 个月前

But you will stand by whilst women are bullied, humiliated as they are forced to allow men in to their spaces and watch their rights erased? Please explain that to me…

Akua Reindorf KC 的头像
Akua Reindorf KC4 个月前

It's the law, Tom. And as for your disingenuous comments about Mary-Ann Stephenson, I suppose they're at least consistently within the spirit of the disgraceful, legally illiterate performative politicking your Committee subjected her to when she appeared before you.

Gareth Roberts 的头像
Gareth Roberts4 个月前

Hi Tom. Should men who claim to be women be exempted from the safeguards for women that we place around all other men? And, if so, why? Thanks in advance for taking the time to reply.

Women o' Scotland 的头像
Women o' Scotland4 个月前

Allowing biological men into women’s toilets, changing rooms, prisons, shelters, and sports isn’t “kindness” it’s reckless stupidity that gets women assaulted, raped, and robbed of their privacy and safety. We’ve already seen the cases: girls traumatized, female prisoners impregnated, records smashed by mediocre male athletes. Sex is real. Male violence patterns don’t magically vanish with lipstick and a dress. Women’s single-sex spaces exist because biology matters and safeguarding isn’t bigotry. Stop sacrificing women and girls on the altar of this delusional ideology. Trans rights don’t include the right to override female rights and endanger them. Enough.

Biology in Medicine 的头像
Biology in Medicine4 个月前

Women need single sex spaces. You are campaigning to exclude women from public life because there are no facilities they can safely use. Instead you could campaign for all types of men to be safe in men’s single sex spaces. Sex is not a choice.

Angie Jones 的头像
Angie Jones4 个月前

But you are OK with women staying home because they can’t participate in public life away from the male gaze. Disabled women, women of faith, survivors of abuse. You don’t give a damn about any of us @tomgordonLD

Adam Hibbert 的头像
Adam Hibbert4 个月前

You neglected to specify what changes to the Equality Act you are proposing, specifically? Women have rights, Tom. Speak to them.

Lola 的头像
Lola4 个月前

Do you have a vested interest in sharing toilets with teen girls Tom?

Swivel-eyed Cornish Dog Whistler 🇮🇱🇬🇧💜🤍💚 的头像
Swivel-eyed Cornish Dog Whistler 🇮🇱🇬🇧💜🤍💚4 个月前

You are a disgusting misogynist And we know exactly who's pulling your strings

The TERF Diaries 的头像
The TERF Diaries4 个月前

No one is being excluded from public life. Men are being told to keep out of the women’s spaces they should never have been admitted to in the first place. If you think that makes those men unsafe then take it up with your fellow men instead of bullying women into opening up their spaces to men. Do something to make men’s spaces inclusive and safe for all men, including the feminine ones. But you won’t, will you, because it’s easier to blame women.

Andreia Patiredson 的头像
Andreia Patiredson4 个月前

The law is the law - the guidance is based on the law. If you are planning to change the Equality Act so that women lose our rights to privacy, safety and dignity - be loud and clear about it. Which rights should women lose?

Sonya Douglas 的头像
Sonya Douglas4 个月前

Why do you hate us? Why do you want to remove our rights in law? Why shouldn’t women have privacy from men? Why won’t you accept it when we say no? Why would you target vulnerable women? What’s wrong with you? Why are you lying? Why are you a misogynist? Why do you hate women?

KPSS Woman who said NO 的头像
KPSS Woman who said NO4 个月前

How ridiculous. Access to opposite sex services isn't a human right. It's a privilege absolutely nobody deserves to have. You can't force women to pretend the giant bloke in a skirt is a 'woman'. We don't consent to the removal of our human rights to dignity and privacy from the opposite sex. Grow up.

Natasha 的头像
Natasha4 个月前

Nobody should be excluded from public life because there are no facilities they can safely use. Agreed. Which is exactly why women need genuinely single-sex spaces. The erosion of those spaces has already driven women out of rape crisis services, domestic violence provision and other support networks. Women have self-excluded when their privacy, dignity and boundaries ceased to matter at the very moment they needed them most. You speak as though women are not part of the public. We are. Without meaningful single-sex provision, women too will be excluded from public life. I voted Liberal Democrat for years. Your party lost my support when it decided that women’s rights were an acceptable price to pay for its preferred version of inclusion.

Adam Hibbert 的头像
Adam Hibbert4 个月前

I suppose Hinder's analysis of the challenge Labour faces here won't apply to the Lib Dems. You lads are only concerned with student politics, fighting with Greens over the university town vote.

Homely Woman Kenobi 的头像
Homely Woman Kenobi4 个月前

You’ll happily stand by while women are excluded from participating in public life because there are no facilities they can safely use though won’t you? New misogyny- Same as the old misogyny just now with lipstick and a pronoun badge.

michael harman 的头像
michael harman4 个月前

Good guidance...

Netmums 💕 的头像
Netmums 💕4 个月前

No one is being excluded. Ffs we are just asking men not to use spaces for the female sex.

Suzy Play Nicely 的头像
Suzy Play Nicely4 个月前

You diminish the safety and dignity of women and girls to a ‘culture war’. Pure misogyny. This is NOT a matter of left v right. It is integrity v cowardice. You fail.

Daniel 的头像
Daniel4 个月前

At this point, why don’t the Lib Dems just have a glowing neon sign about their HQ that says ‘bow to the trans overlords, pesky women and gays’?

🟥Hackney Dr. of Terfery 的头像
🟥Hackney Dr. of Terfery4 个月前

Like women you mean. Pillock. .

Indigo Blue 💚🤍💜 的头像
Indigo Blue 💚🤍💜4 个月前

Here is a thought. How about putting the onus on men to behave respectfully towards their fellow men however they present rather than expect women to adjust their boundaries to accommodate them

Outspoken Women 的头像
Outspoken Women4 个月前

I'm a lesbian who marched back in the 80s when Pride was political and we had rights to win. I'm telling you to bugger off and take Pride with you. I do not want men in women's single-sex spaces. You do. What does that make you?

✦ • Dιαnα • ✦ 的头像
✦ • Dιαnα • ✦4 个月前

Easy for you to say, you’re not a woman. Does it not occur to you that nobody is being excluded by being asked to use the services and facilities designated for their biological sex or mixed sex? By forcing women to accept men into their single or separate sex services and facilities you will be responsible for excluding women altogether.

Stuart Macintosh 的头像
Stuart Macintosh4 个月前

Do they inspect hard drives of people before they get sworn in to the commons?

Liberal Voice for Women 的头像
Liberal Voice for Women4 个月前

There are facilities they can use based on their sex. Do you think an EIA was done about allowing males into female spaces? No. No-one asked us. No one checked if it would diminish our ability to participate safely in public life. ps Tom do you support women of faith having single-sex swim sessions?

Emrots- Bruce 的头像
Emrots- Bruce4 个月前

FGS. Everyone does have public facilities they can use, but no-one has the right to use opposite sex facilities. Get a grip. Women & girls have rights too.

Iain Sankey 的头像
Iain Sankey4 个月前

Most LGB people want to protect women's single-sex spaces, so can you please stop invoking our name for your misogynistic proposals. You mean 'T', not 'LGBT'. There is also not a single human right that the rest of us have that trans people do not also possess.

John Connor 🇨🇦 的头像
John Connor 🇨🇦4 个月前

You have misstated what is happening.

🇬🇧 xJEMx 💚🤍💜 #KBF 的头像
🇬🇧 xJEMx 💚🤍💜 #KBF4 个月前

But you'll stand by, whilst womens hard fought for rights are stamped all over to show solidarity with men cos playing at being women ‼️ Well there are certainly easier ways to outing yourself as a raging misogynist ‼️

Terri Lipanovic 的头像
Terri Lipanovic4 个月前

True story. You support men's demands for access to women's safe spaces and sports teams and scholarships and refuges and prisons and assigned jobs and bodies. You support men's feelings over women's and children's safety, rights and language.

𝒯𝓇𝒶𝒸𝓉𝑜𝓇𝑔𝒾𝓇𝓁𝓎 🇬🇧🚜 💚🤍💜 的头像
𝒯𝓇𝒶𝒸𝓉𝑜𝓇𝑔𝒾𝓇𝓁𝓎 🇬🇧🚜 💚🤍💜4 个月前

Another misogynist who demeans the rights of women! Fk you.

Ms. H 的头像
Ms. H4 个月前

Sure they are Tom, sure they are.

Poppy 💙 的头像
Poppy 💙4 个月前

Oh, fuck off. Women are fed up of being sacrificed as de facto therapy toys for mentally ill men. If you want trans identified men to have access to safe toilets, do something about the increasing misogyny-fuelled in large part by mass migration from misogynistic cultures.

相关视频

The Constitution of Ireland begins not with government, but with the Nation—with the People themselves. That is not symbolism. That is authority. It is from the People that all power flows, and it is by our collective will that we established the Constitution as the supreme law of this State. Within it, we gave ourselves courts—not as instruments of control, but as guardians of liberty. Under Article 34, we vested those courts with a solemn duty: to protect and vindicate our personal rights. Those personal rights are not abstract ideas. They are expressly recognised and protected across the Constitution—beginning in Article 40, and extending through Articles 41, 42, 42A, 43, and 44. Together, they safeguard what it means to live freely and with dignity in Ireland: our personal liberty, our families, our children, our right to educate according to conscience, our private property, and our freedom of religion. These rights do not exist at the pleasure of the State. They do not depend on policy, preference, or administrative convenience. They are fundamental, and they are inalienable. What we are witnessing at this moment is something profoundly serious. A member of the Government—holding office as a Minister of State, an office that exists only by statute—has purported, through a statutory instrument, to prevent the People of Ireland from exercising their constitutional rights in their own courts. That cannot stand. No statutory instrument can override the Constitution. No minister, junior or otherwise, can suspend fundamental rights. No act of secondary legislation can lawfully obstruct access to the courts where those rights are vindicated. To suggest otherwise is not merely mistaken—it is constitutionally impossible. The courts do not belong to the executive. They do not belong to departments. They belong to the People, because the Constitution says so. And so, this is where the line is drawn. The Constitution is not optional. Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Access to justice is not a privilege to be rationed. Tomorrow, the law will be laid plainly before the Minister for Justice—not in defiance, but in fidelity to the Constitution; not in anger, but in duty to the People; not for personal grievance, but for the protection of all. Because if fundamental rights can be restrained today, they can be extinguished tomorrow. And if we do not stand now, we leave our children standing alone later. This is not about power. It is about principle. It is about ensuring that the Constitution lives—not on paper, but in practice. And it is about the furtherance of our fundamental rights, so that we may protect ourselves, our families, our children, the way we educate our children, our private property, and our religion—today, and for generations to come. #NoFeeOnGuarantee

Patrick McGreal

12,106 次观看 • 9 个月前

Graham Stuart, MP for Beverley and Holderness delivers a great speech in the parliamentary inheritance tax on family farms debate: It is possible to challenge one’s Government. I said to my Whips then that the best service we could do the Government was to prevent them from doing something stupid, harmful and alienating to voters. I hope that Government Members can see that, because the Opposition cannot change this. People outside say to me, “Can we get this changed?” It is actually up to Labour MPs. They have the majority. Democracy is not about having a majority and doing what one likes. Democracy is about listening and doing what the now Prime Minister told the NFU when he said: “You deserve a Government that listens, that heeds early warnings”. There are one or two warnings about. Listen, change: if the Government change, four years on, no one will remember the U-turn. Whatever civil servants say—they are always very keen to stick with a policy—if it is wrong, stop doing it. And this is wrong. In the minute and 20 seconds I have left, let me say why it is so wrong. We have touched on the various elements, but I am not sure we have pulled it all together. We have a really peculiar group of businesspeople in this country; they are called farmers. They take a return on capital—the millions they have invested in their farms—that is typically less than 1%. There is nobody that I am aware of—no business I was ever involved in—that would remotely consider continuing in an industry that paid less than 1%. These farmers take a pittance and get up at 4 o’clock in the morning for the privilege. They look after the animals and it does not matter if they are ill; they cannot carry their employment rights and go, “I’m not well, I shouldn’t have to go out,” because the cows do not care: they have to go out and look after them, and then they get less than 1% return. Those farmers, the most beneficent public-minded businesspeople in the whole country, then provide excellent food at among the lowest prices in Europe. If ever there were a business that we would not want to go and mess with, it is these—I should not say it, because I will make enemies of them. We must understand how remarkable it is that there is a whole group of businesspeople who take practically nothing from their business, work all the hours God gives, and provide us with some of the finest food in the world at among the lowest prices in Europe. Why would we want to mess with that? Not only do they do that, but they brainwash their children from the earliest age so that they carry on doing it. These people are in indentured service to the nation, providing food while making very little profit. They do it willingly and, in fact, love it: it is their life. To go and mess with them out of some stupid, socialist spite is ridiculous and absurd, and Government Members know that—the hon. Member for North Northumberland certainly does, and he should lead his colleagues to tell the Chancellor to change course, just as we did in 2012 when George Osborne got it wrong.”

No Farmers, No Food

116,058 次观看 • 1 年前