‘Rights can be knocked out in a second’: older transwomen shocked by SC ruling

What he means is long cons can be rumbled in a second.

Respectfully raping, assaulting, harassing, destroying women's groups, invading their spaces, getting them arrested for asking for spaces of their own or even stating words of their own, getting them fired from their jobs, destroying their access to refuges and support groups, respectfully and constantly threatening to sexually assault and kill them in ways that would make a psychiatrist's eyebrows raise.... but women merely fought through the courts for years against all the threats and hardships because they maliciously wanted to upset men for shits and giggles.

you cannot communicate with someone this lost in delusion. Women have the evidence of all this, it's as real and obvious as biological sex is. It cannot be burbled and dramatically hyperboled away.

Rights Goodwill can be knocked out in a second.

There, fixed that for you.

They all passed so well that we never knew they were there.
🙄

Men were lied to by Stonewall et al. They didn’t have the right anyway.

I see Ed Davie and Carla Denyer are on the BBC website looking all sad faced, saying the guidelines have been rushed through, calling for the single sex guidance to be withdrawn. Thank goodness neither of them will ever win a general election.

Apparently the guidelines need more clarity 🙄. I'd say they were crystal clear 😁

I definitely remember the 80s and 90s and was both politically active and heavily into women's rights. I have absolutely no recollection of this happening at all in Manchester where I lived then, or anywhere else.

I think this probably another example of 'There have always been transgender people /The Stonewall Riots* were started by transwomen of colour'. rewriting of history🙄

• [at the NYC bar of that name in 1969, not the ailing organisation named after it, just to be clear! ]

I was a student in the late 80s/early 90s. I was a political teen and involved in the NUS from age 16. I was a delegate several times to the NUS Women’s conferences, as well as the main conference. LGB rights were very much discussed/campaigned for at Women’s conferences during this period.
Trans issues? - nope, nada… it was not discussed, was not an issue for female students back then and transwomen were not involved with any of our campaigning. I met a lot of interesting and diverse student campaigners - I don’t recall meeting a single transwomen involved in student politics during this time.

You cant lose legal rights you never legally had.

It's always previously been framed as 'an honour' system for toilets.

Except this wasn't law. It wasn't a right. And women didn't consent and politicians never legally wrote this into law.

But I don't remember trans rights being associated with any political movement, progressive or otherwise, in the 80s and 90s. (Not sure we would have used the word 'progressive' then, but can't think of a different word).

Gay rights, yes, definitely - section 28, the impact of AIDs and years of famous men being outed - had a huge cultural impact.

Jan Morris was the only person I can remember being slightly in the public eye, but I can't remember any connection to politics or women's rights.

Trans sexuals obviously existed, but they just popped up very occasionally in human interest documentaries, not as part part of the cultural or political zeitgeist.

I can remember Chandler's dad in friends, and 'I'm a Lady' in Little Britain (and that was 2000s), but I can't remember anyone - even the Guardian - being concerned that these TV programmes were offensive.

Nadia on Big Brother... maybe? But I don't think anyone made a connection with politics and that was 2004.

I've read the guardian for decades. This issue has me done with it.

I have a very bright and distinct memory of it not happening.

Empathy, insight and understanding of others, let alone the ability to acknowledge the rights of others, seems to be pretty absent amongst trans activists trying to reshape society to enable their own selfish demands.

but by the same token women have also supported other causes etc ?

The absolute fucking audacity of Whittle to say this when we still have court cases going through the system from women trying to get access to female-only rape support. The absolute fucking gall

"We’ve always been respectful of women’s rights. In the 80s and 90s we were out on the streets along with them and they were alongside us in this fight."

Can anyone remember this?

No sympathy whatsoever,

If they wanted to argue the finer points of the law, while Stonewall expanded trans to include pretty much anyone, they have had years to make their case.

Women have been trying to discuss this politely for years, but instead were told that even mentioning sex based rights was a sackable offence.

I would have expected a Prof with all those letters after their name to be able to write something that made sense - that tweet doesn't.

what about the safety and security of the cis women to begin with, what about them ????

Good grief, you'd think they were 14th century peasants, evicted from the land they'd farmed for generations, as opposed to men who helped themselves to women's spaces, women's services and women's language without even asking first.

Here, if the link doesn’t work:

Whittle likes to act all innocent but Whittle has been heavily involved in shitting on other women. I like JCJ’s tweet here, calling out Whittle’s lies:

https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/1915099354831970595?s=61&t=eyxqR0PEXArt9SPlCOh4HA