Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Does anyone else feel disheartened?

482 replies

ItsCoolForCats · 01/05/2025 17:32

I was so elated at the ruling and the implications for women's sex-based protections.

And I am happy that certain media outlets have realised (begrudgingly in some cases) that refusing to air the concerns of women over the last decade has lead to a very one-sided debate. It's great to see orgs such as Sex Matters being quoted so extensively now.

However, I'm really disheartened by the sheer scale of the push back and by the fact that so many women don't support the ruling. I mean, why would anyone think that women don't deserve fair and safe sporting opportunities, for example? Why is it always women that are expected to forgo their rights?

The Supreme Court ruling should be definitive, but it doesn't feel like the end. There is the judge bringing the case to the ECHR (I know some legal experts have dismissed any chances of success), but I think activists are going to pile a lot of pressure on the government to make concessions and look at amending the law. The disquiet about the ruling amongst so many Labour MPs about the ruling is concerning me.

Is anyone else feeling a bit dejected?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
Circumferences · 03/05/2025 17:05

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 16:57

All celebrity misogynists look and sound the same to me. This is like Guess Who!

Q: Do they have any criminal cases against them?

Umm, do you think listing all the people who support the TRA "side" who are either in prison or are awaiting trial is the way this thread should go?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/05/2025 17:04

Daddy finds swaggering about calling women bigots is comforting in some way. It’s a big old cope.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 03/05/2025 17:04

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 16:32

Who? Why?

Graham Linehan is not like the other men you listed. It's dishonest to pretend that he is.

Circumferences · 03/05/2025 17:01

soupycustard · 03/05/2025 16:55

So let me get this straight - as someone who isn't a regular on this board and might have missed something - the Declaration didn't say that trans people should be eliminated, and no one here has said that trans people should be eliminated. But asking to retain our sex-based rights, given to us because of systemic societal inequalities caused by the differences between the sexed bodies of males and females, is still in and of itself an elimination?
I can't see how that can be argued.

You've caught up pretty concisely 😆

You'll be a bigot, a nazi, and guilty of literal violence by your next post .

ThatCyanCat · 03/05/2025 17:00

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 16:57

All celebrity misogynists look and sound the same to me. This is like Guess Who!

Q: Do they have any criminal cases against them?

Maybe after another six years (did you hear the Berlin Wall came down too?) you'll work it out.

In the meantime, all of them are men and will always be men, something they have in common with all transwomen and no woman.

ArabellaScott · 03/05/2025 17:00

It's either delusion or just deliberate lying. Possibly a combination of both.

Doesn't really matter in the end.

They can't have our stuff.

On a philosophical level, even if women theoretically agreed to pretend that some men are women, it wouldn't make them women.

The futility of the argument is, I think, part of the attraction.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 03/05/2025 17:00

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 15:43

I posted a quote and a link to an informed and qualified analysis of the document, that lays things out exactly as I claim. Tell me what parts you dispute.

The same organisation also submitted this to Parliament. Their intentions are clear.

Their intentions are clearly to protect women from paraphilic men invading women's spaces. This is a legitimate and laudable aim.

ArabellaScott · 03/05/2025 16:58

soupycustard · 03/05/2025 16:55

So let me get this straight - as someone who isn't a regular on this board and might have missed something - the Declaration didn't say that trans people should be eliminated, and no one here has said that trans people should be eliminated. But asking to retain our sex-based rights, given to us because of systemic societal inequalities caused by the differences between the sexed bodies of males and females, is still in and of itself an elimination?
I can't see how that can be argued.

They make shit up. That's the problem.

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 16:57

ThatCyanCat · 03/05/2025 16:55

The one who is very much not like the others.

All celebrity misogynists look and sound the same to me. This is like Guess Who!

Q: Do they have any criminal cases against them?

ArabellaScott · 03/05/2025 16:56

Men will never be women.

It doesn't matter how angry this makes anyone.

It doesn't even matter what the Supreme court says, tbh.

It remains the case that sex is dimorphic and immutable, and it will always remain the case.

Furthermore, women will not wheesht.

ThatCyanCat · 03/05/2025 16:55

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 16:52

They are all horrors. Which one do you simp for?

The one who is very much not like the others.

soupycustard · 03/05/2025 16:55

So let me get this straight - as someone who isn't a regular on this board and might have missed something - the Declaration didn't say that trans people should be eliminated, and no one here has said that trans people should be eliminated. But asking to retain our sex-based rights, given to us because of systemic societal inequalities caused by the differences between the sexed bodies of males and females, is still in and of itself an elimination?
I can't see how that can be argued.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 03/05/2025 16:54

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 15:34

I don't see "genocide" on there.

Literally no one is suggesting that men be criminalised for wearing dresses.

ArabellaScott · 03/05/2025 16:53

Men aren't women.

ArabellaScott · 03/05/2025 16:53

Circumferences · 03/05/2025 16:46

Why didn't TRA's ever campaign for safe and fair spaces for trans people rather than demand women's spaces get handed over to everyone?

GC feminists have been suggesting safe and perfectly normal ideas for trans people to navigate in society for a decade or more (not to chase them out in the slightest, but embrace them in the diverse and welcoming society we all know and love) for example mixed-sex spaces alongside the same-sex spaces such as in sports, refuges etc etc. All of our suggestions have been thrown out with the baby in the bathwater because TRA don't want reasonable solutions.

Why is it the end game of TRA extremism wasn't just to abolish same-sex spaces for women but also to destroy the definition of the word "woman" itself?
It's like MRA woman hating on steroids with demonic possession on the side.

Seriously, if TRA had worked with women and alongside us I'm sure we'd be the best of friends.

But they didn't want that. Now they're all tantrumming. Well, boo hoo. Now go sit in your room.

Edited

The tantrums are the point, tbh.

They are very angry that women won't just gosh darn do as they're told.

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 16:52

ThatCyanCat · 03/05/2025 16:45

Stick around for another six years and you might work it out.

They are all horrors. Which one do you simp for?

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 03/05/2025 16:52

teawamutu · 03/05/2025 15:30

Getting the TRA bingo card out. I think we've had quite a few already. Does 'elimination' count as 'literal violence' do we think?

And does anyone have the updated version with genocide, shadowy right wing/Trump etc?

We're going to need a bigger card.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 03/05/2025 16:48

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 13:36

No. Google "an-international-human-rights-law-analysis-of-the-whrc-declaration"

"It becomes clear that what the Declaration is attempting to do is put forward a case for the elimination of ‘gender identity’ from human rights law, and it is then possible to extrapolate from that, that the document would happily see all legal protections removed from trans people. This is particularly clear when, following a misapplication of the Yogyakarta Principles definition, the Declaration states that “the concept of ‘gender identity’ has enabled men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ to assert, in law, policies, and practice, that they are members of the category of women, which is a category based upon sex.” "

Read it yourself and do your own thinking. Outsourcing critical thinking to others is a large part of how gender identitarianism took off in the first place.

Circumferences · 03/05/2025 16:46

Why didn't TRA's ever campaign for safe and fair spaces for trans people rather than demand women's spaces get handed over to everyone?

GC feminists have been suggesting safe and perfectly normal ideas for trans people to navigate in society for a decade or more (not to chase them out in the slightest, but embrace them in the diverse and welcoming society we all know and love) for example mixed-sex spaces alongside the same-sex spaces such as in sports, refuges etc etc. All of our suggestions have been thrown out with the baby in the bathwater because TRA don't want reasonable solutions.

Why is it the end game of TRA extremism wasn't just to abolish same-sex spaces for women but also to destroy the definition of the word "woman" itself?
It's like MRA woman hating on steroids with demonic possession on the side.

Seriously, if TRA had worked with women and alongside us I'm sure we'd be the best of friends.

But they didn't want that. Now they're all tantrumming. Well, boo hoo. Now go sit in your room.

ThatCyanCat · 03/05/2025 16:45

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 16:32

Who? Why?

Stick around for another six years and you might work it out.

ThatCyanCat · 03/05/2025 16:44

Oh, are people still doing the "everyone who knows what a woman is has the same attitude towards them" thing? Aka the Oscar Schindler Gambit. Hitler and Schindler both knew what a Jew was, therefore Schindler is Hitler, you see. And if we want to save Jews from Hitler, we absolutely must pretend we don't know what a Jew is, because that will make Jews safer. And if you don't agree, intersex 6' bearded transmen bigot spectrum dingbat teapot orange.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 03/05/2025 16:44

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 13:24

"The Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights" says otherwise. "Elimination" is the word they use.

https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-full-text/ is the full text. My browser has a function to search for text within a page. Nowhere does that declaration call for the "elimination" of trans people.

By lying, you prove that you have no legitimate argument.

Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights

Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights: Full Text - Women's Declaration International

The Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights

https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-full-text/

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 03/05/2025 16:34

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 12:55

Nope. Women's spaces is the vehicle, trans elimination has been the stated goal of Gender Critical / TE rad fem thinking for decades. You only got out the fringes because religious conservatives saw you as useful fodder for their agenda.

Nice conspiracy theory you've got there. Shame it doesn't reflect reality.

Circumferences · 03/05/2025 16:32

Indeed soupycustard let alone how is it that women having legal same-sex spaces for women is "chasing trans people out of society" ????

Trans people can still crack on in society no one's minded.

MadBadDaddy · 03/05/2025 16:32

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 03/05/2025 16:31

One of these men is not like the others.

Nice try.

Who? Why?