Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

At first I cheered, then I got angry at the years of bullying and misinformation women have been subjected to

167 replies

IwantToRetire · 16/04/2025 19:32

The Supreme Court has said the word sex in the EA means biology - fantastic! Credit due to FWS for persisting.

But why did we need a court to say this?

Because TRAs have spent years spreading misleading information.

So then you have to ask why, for instance, was Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre able to advertise a vacancy as being under the Single Sex Exemptions but appointed a man who self identified as a woman.

None of the institutions in Scotland did anything to tell them they were breaking the law. Not funders, not politicians, not charity overseers - not even the organisation representing Rape Crisis Centres in Scotland.

Is this a specifically Scottish problem? In other parts of the UK posts advertised using the SSE no other women's service provider has done this. (As far as we know). Some women's service providers only offer SS services, some offer SS Services and also trans services, which shows they know the law. And advertise accordingly ie whether SSE or transinclusive.

When and who is going to investigate how those with power colluded to undermine the meaning of the SSE. And why Stonewall law was allowed or even promoted.

And we know the poison of the misinformation has spread particularly in more social, informal settings across the UK, and even the right of lesbians to be lesbian ie same SEX attracted.

But the added bonus of today's ruling is that with the judgement that sex is biological then the instance that the case was first started about, eg representation on boards, means companies can not include trans women to improve a companies SEX equality achievements.

And also now women's sport, women's changing rooms, women's toilets, women's (Ladies?) pond, and .... are going to mean SEX based.

So as I know there are many other threads celebrating the FWS Flowersvictory today, just wanted to ask how is it possible that so many people and institutions were so willing to accept the misrepresentation that women's rights were subservient to trans rights.

And could this happen again?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 18/04/2025 03:15

So this may sound a bit odd coming from me, but worth remembering that behind the loudmouth TRAs are people who for whatever reason have been led to believe, even support to think they can change sex.

Of course they are seeing it as a betrayal.

But the betrayal are not only those who created the GRA and the notion of a GRC (only initially to get round the then forbidden same sex marriage) as saying you can change your sex.

So all those who spent decades burrowing their way into positions of influence in universities, the media and political parties do owe them an apology. The loud mouth TRAs who are basically MRAs have promoted a false reality, which some ended up believing.

So of course it is a betrayal.

But not by the courts, but by the irresponsible, queer culture fanatics who have spent years infiltrating and influencing people who should know better.

If you but money into a savings account and then years later were told the saying account was a fraud, you wouldn't blame the person who exposed it, you would blame the people who misold it.

But of course, its always women's fault.

Not the loudmouth queer males, or their complicit politician fans.

Naughty women have made them see the truth so it is women who are are fault.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 18/04/2025 02:32

Btw these emails expressing concern for one group whilst neglecting to acknowledge how the rights of another have been unlawfully violated, set up a hostile culture for the latter group.

This will actively discourage the latter group to put in complaints and to get the redress they should have under the law.

RedToothBrush · 18/04/2025 01:52

Supporterofwomensrights · 17/04/2025 23:47

Something that made me angry today: my employer (and others are at it as well, I think) issuing a statement to say that they will need to take stock and are awaiting further guidance but in the meantime would like to say that understandably trans people in our community may be feeling undermined or shaken and, as an inclusive community, we have a shared responsibility to support them, blah, blah. In some cases I've seen trans emojis and love hearts...

Had the judgement gone the other way the statement would not have acknowledged what women would have lost (in fact what we have lost over the last 15 - 20 years). No, it would have been: We welcomed the ruling in the Supreme Court as part of our commitment to fostering a welcoming and inclusive community where everybody belongs. We wholeheartedly support...blah, blah, blah.

One PP on this or another thread (I've been hopping around doing a lot of reading) described commentators as 'funereal'. Would they have been 'funereal' if 'woman' meant 'anyone'. No, they bloody would not. It's been wall-to-wall trans flags in commiseration because we GCs won and it would have been wall-to-wall flags in celebration if we'd lost.

Despite my anger, I am still delighted, of course. But I'm finding it harder to bite my tongue at work.

Edit: typo

Edited

It's so depressing to see this level of institutionalised misogyny and a complete lack of understanding of how distressing and upsetting many women have found things and been forced to comply out of fear.

All those training courses that did this are now out of date and it will cost a fortune to rectify it in line with the actual law and what the law has been since it was written.

There's no acknowledgement of how women's rights have been illegally violated for years and how these organisations have been part of that.

There's no 'if you think you might have been adversely affected by our unlawful policy, please contact HR'. No. Because they know damn well this is an admission of liability.

Supporterofwomensrights · 18/04/2025 00:54

You do @moto748e

moto748e · 18/04/2025 00:27

Great work, Brendan! But yeah, I think it's far from over, if I have your meaning right.

Supporterofwomensrights · 18/04/2025 00:06

moto748e · 17/04/2025 23:56

Yes, that is so xxxxx true. Says it all, doesn't it?

Show quote history

Yep.

This is something of an antidote to anger: https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/04/17/the-hilarious-meltdown-of-men-who-think-theyre-women/

I like this although I think it's a bit optimistic: For while this noisy orgy of self-pity might doll itself up as a cry for civil rights, in truth it’s the death rattle of trans activism’s neo-misogyny.

The hilarious meltdown of men who think they’re women

The Supreme Court’s ruling has driven trans activists nuts – and I’m loving it.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/04/17/the-hilarious-meltdown-of-men-who-think-theyre-women/

moto748e · 17/04/2025 23:56

Supporterofwomensrights · 17/04/2025 23:47

Something that made me angry today: my employer (and others are at it as well, I think) issuing a statement to say that they will need to take stock and are awaiting further guidance but in the meantime would like to say that understandably trans people in our community may be feeling undermined or shaken and, as an inclusive community, we have a shared responsibility to support them, blah, blah. In some cases I've seen trans emojis and love hearts...

Had the judgement gone the other way the statement would not have acknowledged what women would have lost (in fact what we have lost over the last 15 - 20 years). No, it would have been: We welcomed the ruling in the Supreme Court as part of our commitment to fostering a welcoming and inclusive community where everybody belongs. We wholeheartedly support...blah, blah, blah.

One PP on this or another thread (I've been hopping around doing a lot of reading) described commentators as 'funereal'. Would they have been 'funereal' if 'woman' meant 'anyone'. No, they bloody would not. It's been wall-to-wall trans flags in commiseration because we GCs won and it would have been wall-to-wall flags in celebration if we'd lost.

Despite my anger, I am still delighted, of course. But I'm finding it harder to bite my tongue at work.

Edit: typo

Edited

Yes, that is so xxxxx true. Says it all, doesn't it?

Supporterofwomensrights · 17/04/2025 23:47

Something that made me angry today: my employer (and others are at it as well, I think) issuing a statement to say that they will need to take stock and are awaiting further guidance but in the meantime would like to say that understandably trans people in our community may be feeling undermined or shaken and, as an inclusive community, we have a shared responsibility to support them, blah, blah. In some cases I've seen trans emojis and love hearts...

Had the judgement gone the other way the statement would not have acknowledged what women would have lost (in fact what we have lost over the last 15 - 20 years). No, it would have been: We welcomed the ruling in the Supreme Court as part of our commitment to fostering a welcoming and inclusive community where everybody belongs. We wholeheartedly support...blah, blah, blah.

One PP on this or another thread (I've been hopping around doing a lot of reading) described commentators as 'funereal'. Would they have been 'funereal' if 'woman' meant 'anyone'. No, they bloody would not. It's been wall-to-wall trans flags in commiseration because we GCs won and it would have been wall-to-wall flags in celebration if we'd lost.

Despite my anger, I am still delighted, of course. But I'm finding it harder to bite my tongue at work.

Edit: typo

moto748e · 17/04/2025 23:35

Appalonia · 17/04/2025 19:21

I just wanted to say 100% agree. Labour have lost what they used to stand for. What they stand for now, I do not know. In fact some of the policies they've enacted since they came into power would have been beyond the pale for even the Tories...

Show quote history

I agree too. I still believe in the general traditional values of the Left, but the Labour Party (and many others) have got so bound up in identity politics, that actually concentrating their energies on trying to make life better for ordinary folk seems to been virtually forgotten about.

Appalonia · 17/04/2025 21:34

Sausagenbacon · 17/04/2025 18:02

I think there is a genuine problem of lack of knowledge, and this is why a clear ruling is so important.
As an example, this morning, on r5, a tra said that there had been no serious problems with mixed-sex wards in hospitals. But, of course, there was the case of the woman raped on a supposedly single-sex ward. The NHS refused to admit for some time that a tw patient was in the ward. Because, to them, they were a woman.

At one of the LWS events, someone spoke about a woman who'd had a kidney transplant and so SHOULD have had a private room to prevent the risk of infection, but Because of the stupid rule about TW, a TW was put in a private room and the woman was adversely affected as a result. So women's health is being put at direct risk because of this insane ideology. It made me really angry. I'm sorry I can't remember which one it was said at, I've watched so many of them!

Appalonia · 17/04/2025 19:21

EuclidianGeometryFan · 17/04/2025 12:16

just wanted to ask how is it possible that so many people and institutions were so willing to accept the misrepresentation that women's rights were subservient to trans rights.
And could this happen again?

This is not just about misogyny. That is not even the main factor.

This phenomenon has to be seen within the wider political context of "left vs right".
Over the last few decades, the left has all but abandoned the traditional concern with economic inequality, capital, and re-distribution of wealth.
The left used to be all about defending the "poor" from the "rich". That is no longer fashionable. It is at best a side-line.
Instead, economic justice as a driving force was replaced with "social justice".
The left became all about anti-racism, anti-discrimination, and identity politics.

The thinking of these people goes like this:

The left are the "good people". I am left-wing, I am a good person.
I must not let myself be a bad person.
Anti-discrimination is good.
Gay rights are good.
Trans rights are just like gay rights. (Note - this is the step where the logic is flawed).
I must protect trans rights to prove that I am a good person.
It is old fashioned to stand up for women's rights, like those mad bra-burning feminists of the 1970's - that is just so last century. Women are already equal. It won't make me look like a modern good person to prioritise women over trans. (That is, if women even enter their thought process - that is the misogyny, to forget women).

The left needs to get back to focussing on economic inequality and dump all the 'identity' crap.

I just wanted to say 100% agree. Labour have lost what they used to stand for. What they stand for now, I do not know. In fact some of the policies they've enacted since they came into power would have been beyond the pale for even the Tories...

Sausagenbacon · 17/04/2025 18:36

The point was that the tra didn't even know it had happened, which is a bit different.
I spend a lot of time on this board, and have, personally to remember how ignorant most people are about what has been happening over the last decade.

TheOtherRaven · 17/04/2025 18:13

When a TRA feels that a woman being raped by a man is 'not a serious problem' (and should definitely not stop the man having full access to those women, consenting or not, rather than a private space of his own)

you've pretty much seen exactly why women need rock solid gate kept protections in law.

Sausagenbacon · 17/04/2025 18:02

I think there is a genuine problem of lack of knowledge, and this is why a clear ruling is so important.
As an example, this morning, on r5, a tra said that there had been no serious problems with mixed-sex wards in hospitals. But, of course, there was the case of the woman raped on a supposedly single-sex ward. The NHS refused to admit for some time that a tw patient was in the ward. Because, to them, they were a woman.

MarieDeGournay · 17/04/2025 17:44

I've heard somebody on the radio/TV saying that one of the consequences of the ruling for those poor marginalised trans people is that there are no facilities for them to use now. Nobody suggested 'the ones appropriate to their sex'.

As I said elsewhere/upthread/I'm completely lost in all these threadsConfused
This is a particularly dangerous moment for the accessible facilities that disabled people campaigned for for decades - I fear there will be more cases of them being handed over to able-bodied transwomen as consolation prizes for being driven out of the women's toilets.

Accessible toilets are not gender-neutral thirds spaces, and disabled people are no more support animals for trans people than women are😡

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 17/04/2025 17:29

Referring back to the cultural capture of trans rights are more important rights than women's rights.

On the BBC (where else) on WATO the woman presenter (!) was talking to someone about the impact of the ruling on the NHS.

And when it came up to talking about single sex wards she asked couldn't it (be got round?) by saying wards were based on a common gender.

I dont think she was even aware of how stupid that made her sound.

The court case was about SEX.

And even if the BBC thinks sex and gender are the same thing (wonder which year she was at University) how could she ignore that the court said it was about the reality of biology. But she is clearly locked into the concept of identity.

How are we ever going to be able to get rid of this indoctirnated "newspeak"?

OP posts:
LunaTheCat · 17/04/2025 17:19

I live in NZ . I am so admiring of the women in Scotland who bought this case.
The ripples will spread worldwide. Thank you to the brave Scottish women.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 17/04/2025 17:19

There are at least 2, though undoubtedly more, issues that the impact of the GRA in the EA has has on women's rights.

One is that most of this isn't about the law but the almost stranglehold the trans agenda, Stonewall law) has had on society from education thought to employment throught to politics

This is why so many people, even on reading the SSE saying a man with a GRC should NOT be included in women only services, just ignored it. ie prioritising women's rights was just not considered.

As women we know only too well we aren't listened to, or if heard just ignored, or basically told you may have a point but other people (men) should be the final arbitrators.

The other, and I didn't think a Court could effectively say that those who wrote a bill that clearly was saying men with a GRC are women, to then say the bill always meant that sex meant biology. (Still haven't read the whole judgement.)

I have seen interviews with trans people saying if this case is right, why were they told they had to get a GRC to be accepted as the other sex.

Does this mean as others have said on other threads, that people with a GRC will just become a small group representative of a particular period of time.

Or will these people have a legal case saying they were mislead by the law and / or betrayed by Government / the law.

OP posts:
Oryx54321 · 17/04/2025 17:11

Totally agree and it makes my blood boil. Being trans is ultimately a choice - no one is “born” in the wrong body. You can’t choose to “become” someone of the more oppressed gender, and then claim that you are even MORE oppressed and need more rights than they have.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 17/04/2025 16:59

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 17/04/2025 08:29

I am not in the habit of copying my own posts but when I wrote this on the “empathy” thread I realised how strong my feelings are

“The Equality Act 2010 is 15 years old and consolidates earlier legal provisions including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which used a biological definition of sex.
This judgement interprets the law rather than changing it. This means that at all times sex in the Equality Act has meant biological sex. That is to say that from 2010 to today woman, man and sex in the EA has meant biological sex.
Every single policy, initiative, campaign, guidance, lobbying, website, statement, speech etc that stated woman for equality purposes meant something other than biology was misstating the law and was potentially discriminatory towards women.
How reasonable is it to expect women who have faced a 15 year systematic and at times aggressive campaign to unlawfully misstate and remove our legal protections to look for the middle ground?”

Every single crappy bit of guidance and policy, every women and people who identify as women, was wrong in law at the time it was done. It was wrong then and it is still wrong now.

Unfortunately, even though in an interview Harriet Harman tried to lie about it, the EA as amended to accomodate (promote the GRA) was written to say that "for purposes" men were "legal women".

If they hadn't intended that they wouldn't have had to write (which they very kindly did - joke) the single sex exemptions. The mere fact that the SSE were written ie to say on a few occassions a man with a GRC should not be seen as a woman, shows that Labour as the then Government intended that men could become women!

If they hadn't intended that then the SSE would just have been about as in advertising jobs etc., would be to show when it was legal to say something could be single sex eg clubs, associaitons, etc., etc..

So Labour's attempt at social engineering has been foiled by the Surpreme Court.

I haven't read the ruling in full and wonder who they could possibly have said that in the EA sex = biology.

I have seen some public comments saying a court or Judge does not have the power to define sex.

I suspect this will be one of the grounds on which people will campaign against this ruling.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 17/04/2025 14:34

Talulahalula · 17/04/2025 12:25

No, they hear evidence and arguments from each side.
In this case, they also took a small number of written and oral submissions from interveners, if that is the right word.
The defender here was Scotgov, who have amply consulted with trans groups to write the policies being challenged in court.
I am only at para 175 but my understanding is that the judgement gives a detailed explanation how various intersecting pieces of legislation should be interpreted and following from that, why Scotgov was wrong in its interpretation of the law. In fact, the judgement goes as far as to say that any other interpretation than sex is biological would make the Equality Act incoherent.
The only reason one could object to the judgement is if one holds dearly to the proposition that biological men should be allowed into single sex female spaces, regardless of the law, on the basis of a piece of paper or the intention to get a piece of paper (and vice versa for women and men’s single sex spaces). The judgement lays out the problems with this proposition.

Show quote history

The best and easiest example is of the doctor trying to treat a trans person.

If they treat them in line with their sex they could be found guilty if discrimination under the equality act.

If they treat them in line with their gender they could be negligent because their care would be of a standard below clinical minimums and could harm.

None of this is in the best interests of trans people and it would leave doctors vulnerable to litigation regardless of their actions.

And that's similar to the situation Sandie Peggy found herself in.

Pianoaholic · 17/04/2025 14:05

Feeling fairly pissed off with ITV's 1.30 news bulletin (missed BBC1 1 o clock news).
They had a transwoman on (don't know who it was) who was all up in arms about how it would now be unsafe in toilets etc if they have to use the male toilets rather than the female.
At no point did the interviewer bother to mention that this is exactly what women (Darlington nurses etc) have been putting up with and fighting against. And that this is one reason it needs to be clarified in law!

EdithStourton · 17/04/2025 14:02

RobinEllacotStrike · 17/04/2025 13:22

That so many doctors, lawyers, nurses, judges, police etc decided, despite all they know about the world, that sex doesn’t matter has seriously eroded trust in the fabric of society.

that things went so wrong so fast, & people pushed an obvious cult based on lies & bullying has shocked me for years & still does.

it is surreal.

That, and the academics who fell for it, promoted it, fostered it and hounded people out of their jobs for it.

If I ever get a tattoo, it will probably say, 'Pissed-off realist'.

OvaHere · 17/04/2025 13:49

I will be furious that all this happened for the rest of my days on this planet.

There is no reset button for all the politicians and orgs that enabled it. I can't imagine a time when it won't play a part in my voting intentions etc., even years from now.

As a smart woman once said "if you tell me women have penises why would I believe anything you say again".

DastardlyPigeon · 17/04/2025 13:40

Was replying to someone upthread but the quote didn't work!