To think that society would not be immensely simpler were women denied the right to vote and own property

So go on, you obviously know a way to define se which will give TW access to women’s spaces and protect all vulnerable groups so do please share.

Feminists should be focussed in cleaning and looking after babies? Righty ho. I’m obviously not a feminist then so I’ll just concentrate on fighting for women’s rights 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Actually, They didn’t say it wasn’t possible per se, they said it wasn’t possible in the context of the wording of the current statute and invited parliament to rectify that as they are perfectly able to do.

You know what? No, life would not be simpler for the poor little men who end up having to do everything by themselves. They will be as miserable as ever and end up hating women even more for being utterly dependent on them - those same women they mercilessly imprison.
Taking women's rights away is only a downward spiral for all of humanity. Instead of endlessly whining about women, the so-called 'manosphere' (vomit emoji) should just grow the fuck up.

Well it’s what I am in fact doing right now, but also yes. These are the issues feminists should be focused on- not their beliefs and prejudices about trans people and how wrong they are for being trans

Ooh yes Simone de Beauvoir. Didn’t she also advocate for the removal of the age of consent as she and her group of contemporaries believed children could make their own decisions at any age? So again, which definition of sex should we use that will protect all groups?

A free open ended version of 'sex' would be nice in theory, I can see your point here and why you see it this way, but how would you retain legal protections for those three groups of women, homosexual people and women with trans identities if you had this free and nebulous, progressive definition of sex within law?

The SC went into this in some depth as they considered it, you might find their reasoning interesting as you read the judgment. Their decision was that it was not possible. Not and still retain the protections for those groups.

Therefore to achieve this different meaning of sex in law would certainly benefit this group of men that White speaks for, but would necessarily have to mean removing the protections from those other three groups. If this goes to the EHRC White is going to have to justify the destruction of those protections from those other groups in law.

Did you mean to name two gender stereotypes society attributes to female people?

This is the law that the SC judgment defined. That you're very uncomfortable with hearing the realities of it, I have some sympathy for, but reality cannot be imagined away or walked away from. What did you think it was that women here were so concerned about?

Because sex isn’t just about biology. Yes biology is important - we should acknowledge biology (but not in a simple “at birth way” - in the reality of all its diverse complexities) but it doesn’t define who women are- this is actually a really problematic and harmful idea. the second sex - one of the foundational works of feminism - provides a really great exploration of this

Anyway as above. Cleaning bathroom it is!

Ooh I’d heard about the @Tandora exit and now I’ve seen One in person! Ooohh the excitement knows no bounds!!

How is defining sex as biological detrimental to women, girls, homosexual people? What other definition of sex would protect all these groups?

Anyway, as enjoyable as this exchange was. I think I need to go back to concentrating on cleaning my bathroom and looking after my baby.
Ta ta.

You seem very uncomfortable with this reality.

it’s got nothing to do with reality. It’s nothing more than your very wrongheaded, personal logic, based on simplisms (that have nothing to do with actually making life simpler or better). And yes I am more than uncomfortable with it because it is deeply transphobic (and also detrimental to the rights of women, girls, gay people and all people affected by false, binary and hierarchical mandates based on simplisms about ‘sex’).

How is it more simple to include some men in the female category than just agree that men are men and women are women?🤔
Robin, like a lot of men, is just trying to promote a position that favours men like him

Well yes, absolutely it's open to scrutiny and discussion, but the facts identified by the judgment were that to retain the protections for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities, sex had to mean biological birth sex throughout the act.

To change this to give men the freedoms they wish has to mean destroying the protections for those groups: the two things cannot exist at the same time. There won't be a magic way of re writing it to make it all work out, it's one or the other. You seem very uncomfortable with this reality.

Oooh I have permission to keep talking from the great one glorious @Tandora ! My year is made! 😂😂😂😂

And if a transperson can’t accept the reality of their sex, then they may need help to deal with that.

uh huh. Keep talking. Because that is really what this is about.

Um… the only bit you got right was that the SC judgement and the EA have nothing to do with the laws of physics. And if a transperson can’t accept the reality of their sex, then they may need help to deal with that.

I like what you are trying to do here. It’s like when you try to gaslight trans people about the “reality” of their “sex”.

😉

the judgement is what it is. It was an interpretation of the wording of an act of parliament as it was written at a particular time. Badly written and out of date statutes and badly formulated legal judgements are part of living in a polis. These things have nothing to do with the laws of physics they are a product of politics and law, both of which are determined by society , open for discussion and scrutiny , and very fixable.

HTH.

Evidently. Who knows what other “modernising” tweaks could be be made if the government decided to change it? The need for women to have single sex spaces when vulnerable or it’s appropriate for them to be able to participate in public life hasn’t gone away.

I am sorry, it's the reality of the judgment.

The effect of a bit popped into the EA to fix this would still have the effect of removing the protections for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities and would make the law wholly incoherent: it would only mean the harms to those groups were made harder to defend themselves against in law. It would be in effect to remove those groups' protections where they were inconvenient to men with trans identities.

I mean this is nothing more than a load of very wrongheaded personal reasoning. But if you want to debate the merits of the SC judgement maybe start a thread about that and debate with people who want to engage with you? Thats not actually the subject of this thread or my interest in intervening.

I can see you're very, very uncomfortable having to look directly at what you're supporting, and that you may not to this point have fully understood how very homophobic, transphobic and misogynist it actually is. I have every sympathy. It is easy to want to be kind, without realising the extent of the impact on others.