To be annoyed by tra hyperbole around supreme court judgment

Look up John Money.
It has always been the goal of certain people to create adults who look like children.

The long term effects of chemically sterilising children on brain development are unknown
but that child will remain functionally frozen at the date they started taking the drugs.
They will never go through any sort of puberty or feel sexually attracted to anybody.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

I am so confused

I am gender critical and happy with the ruling

However short of a cock and balls check there will be stealth transwomen who pass who will continue to use gendered spaces as it was before the tra's started demanding that any man could be a woman because they said so. It will though mean that the obvious trans women will be prevented and can be challenged which is a good thing

It was a statement of fact.

"They"
Who's they?
Trans people aren't one big group, they're individuals, people.
Just like you and me.
It's the exact same argument whatever the "flavour" of bigotry.
"They're" coming over in boats, taking all our jobs, protect our women and children....."
Or this.
Emotive language used as well, disagreement is always "furious", "angry."
I've been accused on here several times before of being furious, and a man. Of which I'm neither.
It's a way to sow doubt on dissenting voices, to paint them as dodgy.
Oh and just because someone disagrees, or there's more than one disagreeing at once, doesn't mean it must be some great big coordination conspiracy theory from Twitter or wherever. 🙄

You are the one repeating it. I did you the (undeserved?) courtesy of thinking you had considered it in-between those occasions.

Maybe give it some reflection before the JAQ repetition and that might prompt some discussion of the practicalities and merits.

You mean this poor child was put on a medical pathway before puberty? Before they could for example decide to marry, join the army or have a tattoo?

Why what is your solution?

What is your workable solution for the edge cases that occupy your thoughts?

What is your response to Naomi Cunningham’s nut-free conundrum?

I don’t think Rebekah would be challenged but these trans people would… *image under review

They are rare but when I say those who pass I mean people like Rebekah who did not go through male puberty

https://www.rebekahbruesehoff.com/about

They really have taken societies and in particular womens socialisation to be kind to the clearly vulnerable who have difficulty with reality and run with it to the nth degree

there are multiple reasons why TW hardly ever pass - height, shoulder width, size of hands and feet, gait, distribution of body fat, voice

perhaps if we had been less kind from the off and pointed out that they were in fact a bloke in a dress with long hair then maybe they and their allies wouldn’t be so deluded as to think they pass. I know 3 TW and none of them remotely pass. Obviously I don’t point this out to them as 1. I hope they know 2. They're men and I don’t fancy being on the receiving end of male verbal or physical violence and 3. It would be unkind because see 1

if you can be the carefully curated hyper filtered posed photos on social media I understand why ppl think they pass. Not so much in real life

but here’s the thing, even if they did pass, theyre still men and can fuck off out of women’s spaces

A great example of how trans is all about deceiving others. It really is something waves red flags all over the place

Trevor Philips has laid bare the deceit and bad faith at the heart of the legislation.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4039df92-15a2-48e8-a73f-aca8dad25d0b?shareToken=fac9197f0581a79518d1234d5ae195e5

When parliament debated the 2010 Equality Act, the extreme activist organisations and their agents in the civil service and government deliberately avoided revealing their true aim. Their strategy was to force authorities to adopt informal policies and practices that undermined the law on sex, race, religion and belief, in the hope of creating an alternative reality that would eventually force legislators to adopt their fantasies.

archive

archive.ph/vyqjy

Yes but short of genital checks we aren't going to know about those who genuinely pass unless they get their willy out. There are trans women and trans men who do pass - they will I am sure continue to use the gendered spaces they align with.

Funnily enough, all men have been excluded from women's spaces for our safety, privacy, and dignity.

Which includes all transwomen, pretend or otherwise.

If sex and gender aren’t the same thing, then nothing has been taken from trans people under the protected characteristics of Sex, under the EA2010. So what’s the issue, exactly?

I think it’s laughable that they are saying it’s a win for the patriarchy. They cannot admit that women don’t want to share spaces with them. And the argument about trans women being a tiny minority, yes exactly! Why are we meant to capitulate to such a small minority group over something so important to women?

People who pass for the other gender will likely quietly live as the other gender as they did before. What is less likely though is obvious trans women/ autogynephilic men in our spaces.

People who firmly believe that anyone is a woman if they say they are can they answer this question.

You say the issue is not trans women but men pretending to be trans women. If a man is a woman on the basis of self id without the need for surgery, hormones or even needing to look female how can you tell the difference between a non passing genuine trans woman and a man pretending to be a trans woman to access spaces where vulnerable women are?

Goodness, no. I’d imagine that most (if not all) women think it good and proper that all women are protected under their immutable sex. Even a woman who identifies as a transman remains biologically a woman, so should be covered according to their female sex.

I sincerely hope that we can all recognise it is good that transmen (women who identify as men) will have correct medical treatment, appropriate to their sex. Although it appears to be somewhat dishonest if they swear to live as a male (forever and ever), and then get pregnant before you can say ‘Jack Robinson’. It does show though, how these biological women should have the protection accorded to their sex. However, it rather makes a nonsense of seeking rights in relation to a sex which you do not belong, and in lieu of your real sex.

Just my opinion.

Transphobe! Acceptance without exception!

I hope you’re not being transphobic enough to say that trans women who declare there transness shouldn’t automatically be believed?

is it no longer acceptance without exception??

how bigoted of you

But how do you tell the difference when they look the same?

Ahhhh, but you're not allowed to allege that somebody isn't 'genuine' trans, as that's apparently transphobic (but what isn't?)! So, in order to safeguard all women and girls, we say that all men have to stay out of their spaces. That's how it works.

Tell me what test you use to ascertain if somebody is 'genuine trans' or not (hint: we can't wait until they commit a crime).

I don't think you understand safeguarding!

No, I say that the problem is male violence and that to keep out the violent and predatory men from places where women and children are vulnerable we keep all males out, and that includes those who say they are trans or non-binary. If you know how to infallibly identify honest, gentle people on sight, you must share this valuable knowledge with us. Nobody else ever has.

But it wasn’t required. As the case summary states.. [Trans people].. are able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination on the basis of sex. In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, a trans woman can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived to be a woman. A certificated sex reading is not required to give this protection [248]-[263].