Help me to verbalise my feelings on the trans movement/new law

Grammarnut · 19/04/2025 23:19

Mummybud · 19/04/2025 09:53

I strongly believe people should be able to live their lives authentically and to be honest I wouldn’t mind if a transwoman used a female toilet. I would likely pay no attention to the person in the cubicle next to me if they acted like 99% of women - I wouldn’t even notice. I certainly don’t want transwomen to feel unsafe.

What I object strongly to is the change of language we saw around women, particularly women’s health. “People with a womb”, “people who menstruate”. No. We are women. We have very specific health and life considerations related to our biology. We have entirely different organs, hormones, bone density etc etc etc. The fact that anyone changed that language, or worse, changed their actions/services to allay a (noisy) minority is a huge disservice to women everywhere. Widening the concept of women’s health to include people who are not biological women was ridiculous. The decision this week clarified a position that should never have been unclear to anyone: sex is biological and is a protected characteristic.

I agree with your points, except about being ok with transwomen in women's lavatories etc. Many women are unhappy or traumatized by such inclusion and no-one can decide on their behalf that they will just have to put up with men in their changing rooms, loos etc. Sex segregated spaces are important for women's safety and dignity - this is why we have them.

Grammarnut · 19/04/2025 23:04

Allthegoodhorses · 19/04/2025 08:22

There is no new law.

OP knows that. Wants to know how to talk to a friend who thinks there is a new law and it's wrong, because OP doesn't understand why transwomen want to invade women's spaces.

SkylarkKitten · 19/04/2025 22:40

miniegghead · 19/04/2025 08:36

This is what cant get my head around. Why are views so extreme by trans allies and activists? Can they genuinely not grasp that some people need or deserve single sex spaces - certain faiths for example or victims of abuse.

Show quote history

Because according to lobbyists like Stonewall, any woman whose religious beliefs would prevent them being in the presence of the opposite sex when getting changed etc is bigoted and should be ignored (at best), and victims of abuse should 'reframe' their trauma to accommodate transwomen in their safe spaces

As a woman who is a domestic abuse survivor, lives with a fractured spine, suffers PTSD, I find it highly offensive that my trauma has to be reframed to accommodate bullying.

It's been hard to vocalise opinion in public and online for fear of abuse, retribution and risk of losing your job over 'discrimatory language'

FleurDeFleur · 19/04/2025 22:36

ArabellaScott · 19/04/2025 22:05

Transwomen don't want to share with other men, so women have to put up with sharing with men.

Edited

Yes, that's the bottom line. They've got to have the privilege of the natal male.

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 22:34

Heylo · 19/04/2025 22:31

Sorry to sound dim but I must clarify this. That CEO asked if she orgasmed?

I hadn’t read that in any newspaper. I’m livid. He surely must be breaking some kind of law by asking that. Was he ever questioned about that?

what a sick twisted bastard. That poor woman to be traumatised over and over again.

Show quote history

Yes

Heylo · 19/04/2025 22:31

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 22:27

It was the hideous CEO who asked the question

Show quote history

Sorry to sound dim but I must clarify this. That CEO asked if she orgasmed?

I hadn’t read that in any newspaper. I’m livid. He surely must be breaking some kind of law by asking that. Was he ever questioned about that?

what a sick twisted bastard. That poor woman to be traumatised over and over again.

Sweetbeansandmochi · 19/04/2025 22:30

This came up so briefly the other day and it was clear there was a split of opinion.

I tried to keep it short and to the heart of it - for me the ruling was about the meaning of words. Do we have a common understanding of what we mean. As the word woman has been being changed with out due process. This ruling clarified it.

And for me it is very important because once meanings of words can be changed without a process we can find ourselves in some very difficult situations very quickly.

(and of course I mean ones which carry a legal definition not just normal language development).

BUT for one of the people in the conversation - she looked like she had steam coming out of her ears. And it is the anger and emotionalism that makes it so hard to discuss and puts me off having these conversations.

I really think they can’t see what is at risk of being lost my conceding the term woman to include ‘women with penises’ and therefore eradicating women from legal existence.

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 22:27

Heylo · 19/04/2025 22:23

I’m familiar with the case with the hideous CEO being the ‘invisible hand’ behind Roz’ sacking.

I didn’t know about this. I don’t think that Edinburgh rape crisis centre should still be running if that question was asked. That has to be a safeguarding breach.

Show quote history

It was the hideous CEO who asked the question

OhcantthInkofaname · 19/04/2025 22:26

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 08:34

The opposing view is largely that if you don't believe that transwomen are women then you are a far right bigoted terf who deserves to die in a grease fire.

Yes that's exactly what the opposing view was/is! UK ruling makes our feelings valid.

I was accosted for having a question/answer forum for maturing girls and we stated that periods were a normal part of womanhood. They suggested burning at the stake for me and my co-founder.

Heylo · 19/04/2025 22:23

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 20:18

Yes.

Show quote history

I’m familiar with the case with the hideous CEO being the ‘invisible hand’ behind Roz’ sacking.

I didn’t know about this. I don’t think that Edinburgh rape crisis centre should still be running if that question was asked. That has to be a safeguarding breach.

Ilovetowander · 19/04/2025 22:10

People are either male/men or female/women this cannot be changed, people use the toilets and other facitlites accordingly - that is quite simple, there is no need to complicate the issue.

ArabellaScott · 19/04/2025 22:05

Transwomen don't want to share with other men, so women have to put up with sharing with men.

ArabellaScott · 19/04/2025 22:04

miniegghead · 19/04/2025 08:50

All women deserve single sex spaces. But obviously you are going to get some (the allies) who don’t seem at all perturbed by it and actually think trans women have the right to be in women’s toilets and changing rooms.

Show quote history

Yes. Some people focus entirely on the wants and needs of males, and are unable to grasp that women are equally important.

They also have swallowed a narrative that says transwomen are vulnerable, and de facto harmless.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/04/2025 22:03

Nobody has ever made any kind of convincing argument why I should believe it. I just find it absurd.

ArabellaScott · 19/04/2025 22:01

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 08:34

The opposing view is largely that if you don't believe that transwomen are women then you are a far right bigoted terf who deserves to die in a grease fire.

That's about the size of it.

They argue so hard and so viciously, OP, because they are defending an absurdity that they know, on some level, is wrong.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/04/2025 21:00

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 19/04/2025 20:45

The PP seems not to have realised that her male abuser could 'discover' his inner woman at any moment. Just because it wasn't a trans woman that assaulted her doesn't mean it won't be a trans woman in the dock demanding she /her pronouns and references to 'her' penis. It is an option available to all men, not just nice ones, not just gay ones, not just small ones, not just pretty ones. The big, strong, hairy arsed, ugly, abusive ones can decide that they are really women too.

Show quote history

Exactly.

Greyskybluesky · 19/04/2025 20:56

You mean testeria @AcquadiP 😉

Micaela64 · 19/04/2025 20:55

miniegghead · 19/04/2025 08:16

I am very liberal and usually maintain a live and let live attitude. I don’t care how people choose to identify or live their lives. Gay, straight, trans, race, whatever - as long as you’re a decent person crack on.

However the whole issue with the trans thing is how they have slowly tried to infiltrate women’s spaces and rights. Live how you want to live but don’t try to change society for the majority. It began to feel like the wants and feelings of one trans woman trumped the comfort and safety of a bunch of women and I didn’t like that. So for that reason I support the new laws.

What I don’t understand, and I admit I’m not clued up on the language or in depth debates surrounding this, is why other people are no against this? People I know and have agreed with before entirely on political issues and whatnot are up in arms. They loathe JK Rowling, they think it’s disgraceful. Why are people so angry about trying to maintain single sex spaces? I have one particular friend who is really wound up about it and I know it’s going to come up in conversation. I feel ill equipped to put my point across succinctly because I just can’t understand the outrage at declaring women deserve privacy and respect.

Can anyone explain a little about the opposing view?

Because trans people are a tiny minority of people and it's largely a non issue for most people

AcquadiP · 19/04/2025 20:48

I see the situation as being about outrageous (mostly) male entitlement. The trans movement hijacked the term (biological) "women" and labelled us "cis" implying "cis" women were a subgroup of women which now included trans women and any male who now self ID as a woman. I don't recall "cis" women giving their permission to this new definition of womanhood nor to sharing toilets, changing rooms, refuges etc. It was simply assumed we'd go along with "Barbera" in a frock with a beard and a cock sharing the ladies' loos as an example. Any talk of biological sex was immediately closed down with cries of "transphobic." I'm like you, I'm all for live and let live but not when it comes to what have always been single sex spaces. I'm delighted with the SC ruling, it's a victory for commonsense. Trans women and those who self ID as women should have campaigned for their own spaces instead of trying to bully women into sharing theirs. Frankly, I think you're brave even considering discussing this subject since there seems to be a lot of hysteria around it.🙉

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 19/04/2025 20:45

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/04/2025 20:29

Wanting clear language is not “closed minded”. Wanting single sex spaces is not “closed minded”. You are certainly not the only SA survivor on this thread, so how about you stop lecturing other SA survivors how they should feel about their own boundaries around men. Trans “women” are men. In reality and in law. It’s not up to you how I see them.

And of course you are leaving now you’ve said your little platitudes. The utter horror of being disagreed with by people who make coherent arguments about their own rights!

Show quote history

The PP seems not to have realised that her male abuser could 'discover' his inner woman at any moment. Just because it wasn't a trans woman that assaulted her doesn't mean it won't be a trans woman in the dock demanding she /her pronouns and references to 'her' penis. It is an option available to all men, not just nice ones, not just gay ones, not just small ones, not just pretty ones. The big, strong, hairy arsed, ugly, abusive ones can decide that they are really women too.

FleurDeFleur · 19/04/2025 20:32

miniegghead · 19/04/2025 08:36

This is what cant get my head around. Why are views so extreme by trans allies and activists? Can they genuinely not grasp that some people need or deserve single sex spaces - certain faiths for example or victims of abuse.

Show quote history

Apparently not
.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/04/2025 20:29

CosyTaupeShark · 19/04/2025 11:10

Sorry just had to pop back in and say a few things then I’m actually going to leave because I find the repetitive hive mind arguments on here infuriating.
Firstly, don’t use accessibility as a reason for closed mindedness. As someone who speaks English as a second language, it’s obvious that ‘people with learning difficulties, people for whom English is not their first language, people who simply struggle to read, and many more people for whatever reason’ can have clear, supportive language while respecting the reality that not every patient fits a specific definition. Stop weaponising other marginalised identities.

Also the ‘you left because you lost!’ rhetoric is a really easy one. I could stay here all day- as I’ve shown, I have thought about this for years and have spend many years grappling with the issue myself coming to terms with my own SA. If you want to put that feather in your hat, sure, but it’s not what’s happening here.

Show quote history

Wanting clear language is not “closed minded”. Wanting single sex spaces is not “closed minded”. You are certainly not the only SA survivor on this thread, so how about you stop lecturing other SA survivors how they should feel about their own boundaries around men. Trans “women” are men. In reality and in law. It’s not up to you how I see them.

And of course you are leaving now you’ve said your little platitudes. The utter horror of being disagreed with by people who make coherent arguments about their own rights!

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 20:22

The man at ERCC also said this about raped women who wanted female only counselling

“Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”

spannasaurus · 19/04/2025 20:18

Heylo · 19/04/2025 20:02

Was that reported in the press (male questioning SA victims if they orgasmed during rape). Someone needs to go to jail for asking that question.

Show quote history

Yes.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 19/04/2025 20:07

CosyTaupeShark · 19/04/2025 11:10

Sorry just had to pop back in and say a few things then I’m actually going to leave because I find the repetitive hive mind arguments on here infuriating.
Firstly, don’t use accessibility as a reason for closed mindedness. As someone who speaks English as a second language, it’s obvious that ‘people with learning difficulties, people for whom English is not their first language, people who simply struggle to read, and many more people for whatever reason’ can have clear, supportive language while respecting the reality that not every patient fits a specific definition. Stop weaponising other marginalised identities.

Also the ‘you left because you lost!’ rhetoric is a really easy one. I could stay here all day- as I’ve shown, I have thought about this for years and have spend many years grappling with the issue myself coming to terms with my own SA. If you want to put that feather in your hat, sure, but it’s not what’s happening here.

Show quote history

So now showing concern for the needs of people whose English is limited is "weaponising other marginalised identities". Forgive me for finding it hard to respect such a disrespectful assumption.