Please hold my hand. My daughter has drunk the koolaid, and I’m more upset & angry than I think I have ever been. (SC ruling)

Wasn't going to reply here but I will. I have read the Trans stuff and for a while thought, oh, yes, sex is a spectrum (despite studying biology at university many, many years ago). Then I read a philosophy article on what made a woman (my first degree is in philosophy) and woke up. It's not the same as 'boat people' or 'being invaded by people of fighting age' (and someone entering any country without permission is an illegal immigrant), because those terms, whether we like them or not, are based on some factual evidence (re: the grooming gangs in e.g. Rotherham, the perpetrators for the most part came from a community isolated from the outside world and which has very strong ideas about ;
'in' and 'out' groups; for them the 'out' group did not have the same worth/rights as the 'in' group). Trans ideology has no factual basis, it is all about feelings. Facts come before feelings every time.

I think she might say yes, because TWAW. Obviously he is no longer a man.

She may be thinking of his EO re transwomen in women's spaces (good thing) and protectionism. Absolute free trade is damaging to a country's growing industries in some cases, for example, tariffs are used to protect them. Trump is a business man when all is said and done - he probably knows the effects of absolute free trade (and we can look round the UK at soaring energy prices compared to e.g. France where energy companies are state owned).

I think the problem is that it's the OP's DD who doesn't think it's OK to think differently MarvellousMonsters sounds like a reasonable tolerant and thoughtful woman

Yet she's the one who thinks her DD needs to "be reached" come round to her way of thinking ?

Her beliefs are not based on evidence whereas those of OP are - that sex is binary and immutable, as the Supreme Court (acting as a reasonable person would act) has pointed out is meant by the EA2010. To accept that men can be women drives a coach and horses through the protection given to sexual orientation as well as to sex - as Lord Hodge said, these protections become incoherent leading to injustice for gays, lesbians and women in general. That's fact, belief that TWAW has led to injustice, particularly for lesbians who have been prevented from having same sex associations and been called bigots for not accepting transwomen (men) as sexual partners.

This. People are allowed to disagree with you, you don't have to "reach her." Let her have her own opinions.

No one thinks it is a victory for whom- and why do they say that?

the people who brought the case are celebrating the decision, they think it’s a win. I’m going to be honest and ask why you think it is a loss, and for whom?

If it is actually a Lose, wouldn’t that suggest that there is a conflict of rights and that some level rights are pie?

This, sadly.

On what basis do all these people who are not experts in the law disagree with the Supreme Court's decision that the law does not place trans people's rights above women's rights?

Your friends don't sound very bright.

@Mumble12 Your response to anyone disagreeing with you is to resort to childish insults. It's the action of someone who has no good arguments to put forward.

"No debate" meant that only people whose finances could not be cancelled were able to speak out, more older people able to do so. Maybe your friends are all as childish and bigoted as you are but it's quite likely that they are simply still scared.

I read a tremendous book by David Mccraney, called "how minds change" - it's about how peoples minds really change and what definitely does not make them change. Find the book, read it. But basically, do this - she will come around:

(I have used some web AI tools to get the argument together to work for you, But I have read the book, his podcast, "you are not so smart" is also awesome in general)

1. Switch from “Explaining” to “Exploring”

Instead of:

“I tried to calmly explain to her that no laws have been changed…”

Try:

“I’m really interested in how you came to see things this way—what was it that really made it click for you?”

McRaney’s research (especially on deep canvassing) shows that asking curious, non-judgemental questions helps people reflect on their own beliefs, which can make them more open to new information later. You’re not trying to win, you’re trying to understand.

2. Use “Street Epistemology” and Deep Canvassing Techniques McRaney spends a lot of time with people like Anthony Magnabosco who use a technique called Street Epistemology. Here’s how it works:

• Ask them what they believe.
• Ask what led them to that belief.
• Ask how confident they are in that belief.
• Gently explore what kind of evidence might cause them to shift their confidence.

You might say:

“On a scale from 1 to 10, how confident are you that single-sex spaces should include people based on gender identity rather than biological sex?”

Then:

“What’s the main reason you feel that confident? Was there something you read or saw that really made it click for you?”

Then:

“I really want to understand. Is there anything you could learn—any scenario or evidence—that would make you feel less confident, even slightly?”

This isn’t a trap—you’re not trying to “catch her out.” You’re helping her engage in metacognition (thinking about her thinking), which McRaney shows is often where belief change begins.

1. Work with Shared Values

Try:

“I know you care about protecting vulnerable people—I raised you that way. I care about that too. For me, women are still vulnerable in ways we’ve spent generations trying to address. How do you think we can make sure everyone feels safe—women and trans people—without sacrificing either group?”

Appeal to mutual concern, not conflict. You can even validate her fear:

“I agree that trans people can be very vulnerable. It’s awful they face violence and rejection. But what happens when two groups’ needs conflict? How do we weigh that up fairly?”

This approach avoids framing it as us vs them, and instead opens the door to nuance.

1. Share Stories, Not Stats

💬 You might say:

“I remember when I was young, we weren’t allowed in certain spaces or roles because we were female. We fought to change that. Now, sometimes I feel like we’re being asked to give those hard-won spaces back, and I don’t know how to feel about that.”

That’s personal. That’s emotional. That’s real. It invites empathy rather than resistance.

1. Let Go of “Winning”

🧘 Summary Strategy
Technique
What to Do
Stop explaining
Start asking open-ended, curious questions
Find shared values
Focus on mutual goals (safety, dignity, fairness)
Avoid identity threat
Don’t label her views, just explore how she got there
Use deep canvassing
Ask “How confident are you?” and “What makes you feel that way?”
Tell your story
Share personal experience, not “gotcha” examples
Play the long game
Trust that seeds take time to grow

People not agreeing with you doesn’t make them abusive.

I’m not bothered about convincing people who’s usernames are “any old dinosaur” that the world is evolving and that their thoughts from a generation ago aren’t going to stand the test of time.

I have just come back from lunch with a group of 16 friends, all from different walks of life, all living very different lives now - teachers, doctors, stay at home parents, policemen. All agree that this ruling is a step backwards. So this is clearly a generational thing in my opinion - because absolutely no one in my circle thinks this is a victory.

It doesn’t, which is why I didn’t mention middle
aged men playing sports

Anyone seen how crazed they are on Redditt? Baroness Falkner and the Supreme Court would be banned from posting there even explaining logic to them. That's why I've got no time or sympathy for any of them. This whole dumb ploy where they thought they'd Piggy back on women's rights and pass themselves off as women without having to fight the way women have had to especially older women. The whole thing makes me puke.

That culture, though, has been nurtured by the 'schools of social justice'.

Liverpool university now has a whole new building and department called the 'School of Social Justice' for example. I know of a lecturer in law there who was targeted for her work with GC activism.

Of course, that is the starting point. One's own response to a text. Not having someone tell you how to frame it or read it.

I think the main differnce in our attitude towards education and the role of the teacher is that you seem to centre and prioritise post modernist/social justice analysis and readings; wheras I'd be more inclined, if i were still teaching, to introduce them as but one type of model for engaging with a text - and that I would see pure enjoyment of texts for what they are, and the language and imagery they use, as coming first and formemost. Different readings should be secondary to the initial engagement.

I don't want trigger warnings on texts, or to be told that they might contain things which some might find offensive before I've even read it. At the level of higher education students should be prepared to engage with and encounter everything. And that includes classic texts from different times and cultures.

Also, those analysis and 'alternate readings' are not the be all and end all, or the defining statement, or judgment, of that work of literature.

Nobody encounters a text "naked". Even if you discount something like Derrida's idea that there is no outside-text, ignore the interconnectedness of texts etc, you're still a subject bringing your own experience, personal & cultural to that reading.

No, not schools, I think it was titled post graduate certificate in adult education. I don't think we're going to agree, we appear to have different views on what the role of educators and education should be.

I can well believe the experiences of your daughter, but in my experience that's got less to do with theoretical approaches and more to do with the capturing of Unions at local, branch & national level by trans activists. Combined with the culture of fear amongst management & staff.

What has tended to happen is those sorts of readings, or very certain schools of thought, have become central...to the extent that the text is no longer encountered 'naked' in the first instance, and only ever approached via such analytical models. Enagagement with texts has been confined and stunted and shaped entirely by adherence to such' social justice' models. So students come away from Macbeth, for example, and they can only view Lady Macbeth through the lens of 'patriarchal oppression'.

But those three theories all fall under the one post modernist label.......which has become ubiquitous in many places of higher education.

You must remember how silly things got.....with students at Manchester university, for example, wanting to ban clapping...and in which university campuses where decorated with banners declaring 'safe spaces'. And the Socialist Workers with their stalls declaring that TWAW, staffed by students and lecturers in science subjects; and at which speakers such as Julie Bindel or Peter Hitchens had their events boycotted?

I can't imagine you were training to teach in schools. Maybe in FE? It was certainly never standard when I trained. When my daughter trained, the university in which she did ther PGCE, was known for its adherence to trans ideology and very much into its 'social justice activism'....so It may well have been on the reading list. Though if it was, she didn't read it.

Students, staff and the teaching unions at that particular university also hounded some of its female lecturers when they would not conform to the edicts of gender identity ideology. Threatened them with discipline, and students tried to get them sacked. It was all rainbow lanyards and TWAW.

@Mumble12 You started being abusive because your arguments are not coherent and you can not convince others.

Funnily enough when I was young and protesting against apartheid my mother agreed it was the right thing to do. When there is a good reason to change it's possible to defend it, change for changes sake is not always desirable.

Really? I studied it 30 years ago on a Post Graduate teaching course.