Today it's Amnesty Internation on Woman's Hour to discuss the Supreme Court judgment

I think Wes Streeting slapped someone down on Twitter about this?

It's baffling isn't it?

Is it a belief in no need to actually read anything, just download the RightThink from the right source?

Is it this thing of never look at facts or anything else written by a source declared unclean in case it infects you?

The man made a complete fool of himself. He is not the first one.

Thank you for that, but no I don't think it was.

Perhaps it was to do with what was being taught in schools.

I thought the issue had been addressed a lot more unequivocally, possibly by the DfE, but maybe I'm misremembering.

This is the most unintentionally ironic post I think I’ve ever read on here 😂. I’m surprised you don’t have more self awareness of how anti women your posts come
across, what with your first class degree n all. As long your trans mates are ok sod the rest of us.

As it happens I got a first too, and post grad qualifications besides. Only I don’t usually raise them to patronise other posters. Because I’m not a twat.

It appears that no-one has taken the trouble to understand the purpose of the ruling, or to read it

It was the same with the Cass Report - after it was released there were large numbers of complaints about it that could easily be disproved by simply reading it. Rather worryingly though was the number of politicians who were also spouting these lies, including in Parliament.

Are you thinking about the Prof Louis Appleby report

MassiveWordSalad has done a sterling job with that transcription, even if we are none the wiser about what he said. But I think the gist was 'we should all be safe all the time', as indeed we should. But we aren't, never have been and you'd think the Big Cheese at Amnesty International UK would know that.

Bloody car crash of an interview anyway.

The irony is, you're on here, at 10.15 replying to me while allegedly that you support women's rights, while speaking to me, a woman, like utter crp and simultaneously talking the pss about a young person wanting to take their life.

This is the same emotional manipulation script we constantly hear from transactivists: “give us what we want or we will kill ourselves”. Though strangely enough Stonewall counted the partner of a trans person telling a trans person they were being made suicidal by the trans persons behaviour as domestic abuse of the trans person. But consistency and logic are not their forte.

I'm sure the whole 'better a trans daughter than a dead son' narrative was clamped down on by the government a few months back

i'll have a dig

Trans ideology and gender identity theory are constructed on a foundation of foggy confusion and illogicality, and up until now that is also how it has been sustained. The main requirements were faith, unquestioning acceptance and a big dollop of 'kindness'.Clarity, coherence and the necessity to think critically are an anathema.

It appears that no-one has taken the trouble to understand the purpose of the ruling, or to read it; and a blind refusal to accept that sometimes rights can conflict and that 'Sex' is also a protected category ( and sex is not 'gender') leads them to making fools of themselves in this way. Remember Carla Denyer, a few weeks ago ,looking like a rabbit caught in the headlights when asked what " living as a woman" actually meant.

I suspect that this continued and wilful obscurantism will persist for the rest of the year as the truth and the reality fully sinks in and comes to be accepted. The inevitable challenges will get battered against the rocks of legality and reality and will be very publicly dissected as part of the post mortem.

Not sure, but there was an MP in the commons yesterday complaining that if an amendment to the assisted suicide bill went through then doctors wouldn’t be able to talk to children about them killing themselves (as in they should be able to, not to try and dissuade them).

A relative listened to it yesterday and said that her main takeaway was that he was mostly trying to say as little as possible.

She was a bit taken aback when it was explained he wasn't even referring to the right judgment and clearly hadn't understood the content of the SC one. Her question 'why wasn't this pointed out to him by the interviewer?'

@massivewordsalad thank you for transcribing that! I listened late last night and wondered if there was a transcript, and then, by the magic of mumsnet ...

Amnesty dude came off better than RMW but I suspect only because most listeners wouldnt be clear on what he was saying!

To which Anita should have pointed out that this sounds as though he doesn't believe in single sex services at all, and ask him to justify this position. I would love to hear him explain why Amnesty takes a different view now to when it wrote this report. The opening paragraph says "[women] need greater privacy than men when using toilets and washing
themselves".

https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/afr320062010en.pdf

It's arrogance, really, isn't it? I'll go on national radio, tell the women where and why they are wrong, and I don't even need to read the judgement, or do any research about things like the Darlington nurses.

Did I imagine it, or hasn't somebody in the government said you can't incite children to suicide. Due to all the terrible trolling there is online

I haven't listened yet but it doesn't sound like there is much point as that transcript is non-sensical. I can well believe he hasn't read the judgement. Years and years ago I went to a client meeting with a senior manager to discuss a new piece of legislation. My manager waffled a lot and eventually asked me if I agreed with him (which I thought odd as I was an unqualified junior). Turns out he hadn't read the legislation prior to the meeting. Men.

I think it might simply be that he's too stupid to think clearly.

I's very sad to see a young person struggle like that and clearly anyone in that position needs help.

No one lacks sympathy for the very many young girls being destroyed by being told that the source of their serious psychological issues is that they are in the wrong body and need to chemically need to pass as men to feel better.

That is the opposite of an appropriate response to these problems, and the research shows clearly that transition doesn't help long term, in fact there may be an increase in suicidality after medical transition.

The research is also clear there is no elevated risk of suicide compared to other young people with the same co-morbidities. What that suggests is that it's nothing to do with gender identity.

For a lot of these young women it seems to be related to autism or sexual trauma.

Thanks for transcribing, MassiveWordSalad (great name!)

Amnesty Dude:
I don't know the specifics of the changing facilities in in that case, but even to use that particular example that you said, for for example, the um if changing facilities or any other kind of facilities are a a space with safeguarding with the right protections for people, regardless of which is any other person that's coming in that space.

Well that's cleared that up - thanks Amnesty Dude, I get it now!

Obviously, I'm late to this, but a moment's Googling tells me it's not just AI; far from it. The WHO, most of the UN, it seems, anti-trafficking charities, trades unions (natch) ...

If anyone is interested, here is Buck Angel's commentary on the SC ruling, It's a bit of a rant and very funny, but Buck defiantly says that gender activists have ruined what transexuals achieved.

Don't know why the image doesn't show.
It is of two clasped rainbow-coloured hands, with the message:

"What's more difficult?
Accepting your child for who they are or burying them because you couldn't?"

There really are no words for people who put this kind of thing out there - who torture parents like this and increase the risk of children killing themselves.

Re the threat of suicide, this was posted on the '@ pride uk org' X account yesterday:

In my experience many of the people who wear these things are very pro GI.