Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Women's rights general conversations - Thread 10

833 replies

Kucinghitam · 10/04/2025 11:08

Continuation of Thread 9.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions in the supermarket, grr"- that sort of thing).

Women's rights general conversations - Thread 9 | Mumsnet

Continuation of Thread 8. There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5132652-womens-rights-general-conversations-thread-9?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
100
NoBinturongsHereMate · 19/04/2025 17:52

It's quite remarkable, isn't it?

Even the fox botherer has suddenly remembered transmen. Not as actual people, of course, just as a theoretical construct that predatory men can use as an excuse for entering women's spaces. For some reason he seems to think this is a good argument for letting transwomen in instead. You can see why he's lost so many cases.

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 19/04/2025 09:23

It's like a TRSOH Greatest Hits of 2018 Bingo around here since the judgement.

"Tiny minority"
"Intersex"
"Sex is such a complicated spectrum"

and suddenly everybody remembers the transmen.

OP posts:
BabaYagasHouse · 18/04/2025 19:27

Kucinghitam · 18/04/2025 07:19

Something in the Grauniad that I agree with and isn't all about the special menz!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/17/clarity-uk-supreme-court-rights-of-women-campaigners

Despite their borrowings from intellectual postmodernism, gender identity activists (including such luminaries as Judith Butler) take a binary view of our complicated world in which anyone who doesn’t line up with them must be on Team Trump

She makes a point here I don't think I've come across as much as it should. That the "sex is a complimacated performativitic constellationary supercalifragilisitic nebulous dogwhistly rainbowistic fuzzy blurry spectrum which nobody with a legitimate competent Intellect can possibly comprehend" crowd are remarkably black-and-white "everybody who disagrees with my Righteousness is Hitler" binary about everything else that even touches upon the Omnicause.

Thanks for this article! Reminded me to get SR's book too!

lcakethereforeIam · 18/04/2025 18:49

I've seen a few 'while you're celebrating spare a thought for the poor tw'. As if women would have got any consideration if the verdict had gone the other way. Possibly they'd have tossed a few 'sucks to be you, bigots!' our way and started threads to gloat.

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 18/04/2025 18:30

Since the SC ruling, there's been an astounding influx of Righteous beautiful glowing souls of loving kindness desperate to performatively flagellate us for WrongThink and deliver knob halo-polishing intellectual masturbations about how Complicated sex is. I can't imagine how we all coped without their masterful input.

OP posts:
DeanElderberry · 18/04/2025 17:04

the 'how do I live in the female gender' thread in chat let me know that people with a GRC are 0.012721243836392% of the UK population. Which is interesting.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 18/04/2025 16:22

Love Kathleen Stocks letter to The Times. I agree with every word of it.

FlowerUser · 18/04/2025 13:39

The EHRC is going to be hardline about it. Another article said they the EHRC ruling means trans people can't use single-sex spaces. Yes they can. They can use the men's. I think there will be a push for neutral spaces which will be costly when actually men need to not be violent to other men who like to wear dresses and make up.

The second article also wrongly stated that there is no law about providing staff toilets for men and women. The HSE regulations are clear that separate facilities for men and women must be provided and if they can't be provided then they must be lockable, flush ceiling to floor doors and contain a sink.

ErrolTheDragon · 18/04/2025 13:01

Smith said the overreach had come from trans groups and public services that wrongly interpreted the law, including in the previous statutory guidance issued by the commission.

quite so.
Trans people’s rights haven’t been rolled back. What happened is that transactivists and bad men happy to exploit ‘stonewall law’ illegally steamrollered over women’s rights. They went too far and now they’ve gone over a cliff.

DontStopMe · 18/04/2025 12:54

Summing up in that article: "“If people could have been a little bit more sensible, this wouldn’t have happened.”
Well, quite.

FlowerUser · 18/04/2025 12:43

DontStopMe · 18/04/2025 09:55

I thought I'd have a look at letters to the Guardian on this subject. Surprise! They don't seem to have published any.

But they did publish this

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/17/trans-activists-accuse-uk-equalities-chief-overreach-suggesting-bans

which ends with a great quote from Susan Smith, a co-founder of For Women Scotland.

Trans activists accuse UK equalities chief of ‘overreach’ for suggesting bans

EHRC’s Kishwer Falkner says trans women may be barred from some women’s spaces after supreme court ruling

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/17/trans-activists-accuse-uk-equalities-chief-overreach-suggesting-bans

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 18/04/2025 11:30

I'm just ConfusedGrinConfused at the combined

"Nothing to see here, nothing has changed, silly wims making a fuss for no reason"
and
"ZOMG it's the end of civilisation and the fascists are marching on our faces"
sometimes from the same posters on different threads.

OP posts:
moto748e · 18/04/2025 11:25

I know there's plenty of good people there still, but I don't want to go back. That was then.

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 18/04/2025 10:41

I went over to the other place to see how they reacted to the ruling - much sense, but it was a bit sad to see people who used to seem intelligent going full ostrich.

Urgh. I can only imagine.

OP posts:
anyolddinosaur · 18/04/2025 10:35

The BBC is launching a public consultation on what people want from it - more coverage of womens rights perhaps? www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2025/our-bbc-our-future-audience-questionnaire

DeanElderberry · 18/04/2025 09:58

For people who don't use X, it's an account of a Marriot hotel giving the key of a woman's room (she was sleeping in it) to a random strange man who pretended he was her husband. And Marriot's unsatisfactory response.

DeanElderberry · 18/04/2025 09:55

I went over to the other place to see how they reacted to the ruling - much sense, but it was a bit sad to see people who used to seem intelligent going full ostrich. It's probably what Helen Joyce said.

However, on the general feminism thread tenesmus posted the link to this
https://x.com/DrVivianS/status/1912537035610505330

what the actual?

Someone on MN posted something about a similar incident recently. It's horrific.

DontStopMe · 18/04/2025 09:55

I thought I'd have a look at letters to the Guardian on this subject. Surprise! They don't seem to have published any.

ErrolTheDragon · 18/04/2025 08:23

Obviously there’s lots more press coverage today but I wanted to put this link to The Times letters page somewhere. The first letter is from Jo Phoenix, and you’ll enjoy Kathleen Stock’s too.

I thought you would be interested in this story from The Times:
Court ruling on the definition of a woman.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d95b5074-bbaf-4c0f-98f2-ba6e2758b599?shareToken=b4b02df2004e6de5a15c803bab24b517

Times letters: Court ruling on the definition of a woman

Write to [email protected], The Supreme Court ruling made me happy and angry in equal measure, as someone who was constructively dismissed by the Open University for asserting that men cannot

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d95b5074-bbaf-4c0f-98f2-ba6e2758b599?shareToken=b4b02df2004e6de5a15c803bab24b517

Original poster
Kucinghitam · 18/04/2025 07:19

Something in the Grauniad that I agree with and isn't all about the special menz!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/17/clarity-uk-supreme-court-rights-of-women-campaigners

Despite their borrowings from intellectual postmodernism, gender identity activists (including such luminaries as Judith Butler) take a binary view of our complicated world in which anyone who doesn’t line up with them must be on Team Trump

She makes a point here I don't think I've come across as much as it should. That the "sex is a complimacated performativitic constellationary supercalifragilisitic nebulous dogwhistly rainbowistic fuzzy blurry spectrum which nobody with a legitimate competent Intellect can possibly comprehend" crowd are remarkably black-and-white "everybody who disagrees with my Righteousness is Hitler" binary about everything else that even touches upon the Omnicause.

At last, a moment of clarity – the UK supreme court has upheld the rights of women | Susanna Rustin

It is vital that we give credit to the tireless campaigners who brought us to this point, says Guardian writer Susanna Rustin

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/17/clarity-uk-supreme-court-rights-of-women-campaigners

OP posts:
moto748e · 17/04/2025 17:46

Vegemiteandhoneyontoast · 17/04/2025 16:59

“transubstantiation by means of lip gloss” Brilliant.

Love it! 😂

Vegemiteandhoneyontoast · 17/04/2025 16:59

“transubstantiation by means of lip gloss” Brilliant.

MMBaranova · 17/04/2025 16:49

She is brave and coherent.

Waitwhat23 · 17/04/2025 16:29

NoBinturongsHereMate · 17/04/2025 16:22

I see Willyboy is calling fix on yesterday's ruling on the grounds that JKR and one of the judges live in the same bit of Edinburgh (they don't).

If I were to choose someone to libel, a supreme court judge wouldn't be my first pick.

Even if they did, does Willoughby quite grasp how many houses are in that area? It's not some remote enclave or millionaire's row - it's a busy suburb of Edinburgh!

Christ, he's thick as mince.