Good Law Practice launch a EHCR/Supreme Court challenge over toilets

It is possible to believe that sex is immutable and significant and that transwomen should not, in any circumstance, be included in the category ‘women’ and at the same time, be empathic to the feelings that this generates for transwomen.

yes empathic for the delusion they have been led to believe…

yes empathic for their mental illness and distress

yes empathic for the mess their thinking is in

but then ‘man up’ in the nicest sense and get on with life… our society seems to have ended in a place where we all have to stop and support and confirm and enable anything someone claims affects them…

we need to build a more resilient society and teach youngsters tools to deal with this distress… rather then collapsing at the first question they have and not knowing how to cope

ultimately this is a luxury indulgence society can’t afford…

we need to roll back to the basics:

• sex is immutable so you can’t transition
• gender is fluid and society’s interpretation, so you can’t change the scope of your gender, you can’t transition it.

• a mental illness (eg body dysmorphia)
• deliberate which has many causes - and they are not good avenues to explore…

until we start from that point, any compassion that is added will simply give the impression of confirming and agreeing - but a hard reset would allow compassion for those who need it

So the transsexuals that you see are not the middle-aged male AGPs that cause so much of the distress.
What is the sex mix of your patients?

My posts are about how frustrated I get by what I believe to be a refusal to understand why women are distressed by the inclusion of males in female only provision because I can understand the distress transwomen experienced by their exclusion.

To me that would suggest that you have empathy, an attribute totally lacking in the T-advocates.

I don’t think it would be contrary if JM advocated for trans inclusion in single sex spaces whilst being sympathetic to the arguments women make in opposition to this.

JM doesn’t advocate for trans inclusion in single sex spaces - that would be advocating for trans-identified men to use men’s toilets and changing rooms which is the antithesis of what he wants. He advocates for the destruction of female spaces which is why women object.

I'm not taking part in this discussion, but I'd like to acknowledge this post of yours, Brainworm - not everyone disagrees/reflects/removes themselves from the discussion with such good grace.

There's not a lot of good grace in online discussions, so I like to mark it when it happens here.
Call me soppy, I don't mind

I am a bit sorry for the ones who just want to live and keep their heads down.

Don’t feel sorry for them. They were the ones behind the Denton Handbook, who set up the GRA, NHS Appendix B, and who were behind the various workplace training schemes - they are the ones responsible for the destruction of women’s rights.

OK, I’ll bow out here. I thought, I still think, my contributions are related but that seems to reflect a misunderstanding on my side.

It may be that I’m missing something, or I’m failing to communicate my point adequately.

I’ll reflect on it some more.

I understand what you are saying but I think you missed the point.

It's not about "status". It's about deciding that something in the way a man thinks means it's reasonable to consider him a "woman". Even if that's only in limited circumstances, it's still fundamentally redefining what it means to be a woman or a man.

We've never seen mental difference to men, such as they are, to be the defining feature of womanhood, more a secondary effect that can be observed but is not universal and therefore not a necesary quality of womanhood.

Allowing the belief that mental difference to men is a fundamental quality of womanhood, overriding even the significance of sex, is IMO a huge mistake and not a path it is ever reasonable to go down no matter how kind and worthy the reason.

IF society decides some men have a legitmate reason to need similar protections to women, and IF society decides the best way to do that is that those men should share a provision with women, then the right and fair way to do that is to rename and rethink that specific provision based on whatever that mixed sex shared need being addressed is.

It is not to say "these men need help here, let's just call them women and then we don't have to think about it any further".

I agree.

There appears to be something I’ve posted, or the manner in which I’ve posted, that gives the impression that my positioning requires women to act or behave in certain ways. I don’t think this.

My posts are about how frustrated I get by what I believe to be a refusal to understand why women are distressed by the inclusion of males in female only provision because I can understand the distress transwomen experienced by their exclusion.

Also, women have being trying to speak for 10 or more years about how men identifying as women make us feel. And the number of men and boys who're trans is increasing.

Why do we have to consider the feelings of a man, when he has been ignoring us all of his life?

So we are having a conversation about how women don't want to pander to the identities of males who say they are female by putting up with them in female spaces, using female pronouns and saying they are absoluetely women and this is objectionable, so you reply that your experience is with males who don't use female spaces, female pronouns and demand we call them women.

Talk about missing the point.

I agree with you, and most of the responses to my posts.

I am struggling to understand the either/or positioning that is presented in them.

I don’t think understanding how and why someone is distressed means you need to take any action, including showing care or empathy.

I posted the argument that it is possible to accept that transwomen feel dehumanised when excluded from the category ‘woman’ and that women feel dehumanised when they are included. I said get why both sets of feeling arise.

Fair enough, but it's not women's job to make trans-IDed men feel better. So that's where it ends. Their problem, not ours.

Does anyone remember the Angels website? Their users came on here, claiming to be the reasonable ones, meanwhile posted there about their hatred for women.

I am a psychologist and work in different contexts.

I have a specialist role, which indirectly involves lots of gender related issues - my Zoe is must area isn’t gender identity.

In all of my places of work there are 3 types of toilets.

My work involves me exploring thoughts, feelings and behaviours of clients/ patients - most of whom are between 16 and 25.

I don’t use preferred pronouns. This is part of the work I do with them. I don’t use any pronouns.

And that's lovely, within your job.

Within which you have (hopefully) support and training regarding enmeshment, enabling and appropriate boundaries, unwittingly using your clients to meet your own needs which is a risk in any therapeutic relationship rather than doing what your client needs, (not wants, but needs), and during which you as a person and an equal are not relevant: you're in a caring, providing , paid role.

Women should not be providing unpaid, unqualified, unsupervised caring professional services to random men from any groups, particularly with regard to people with psychological needs where enablement can be very much not in anyone's best interests. Women drawn to doing this often have serious issues of their own.

Very much agree. I think quite a few of us have people like that in our lives, and I do feel a bit sorry that extremist transactivism shit the bed for them.

But they had plenty of opportunities to say "not in my name" or "this behaviour is totally unacceptable" or "this is not what our community is", and with very few exceptions they didn't.

Now whether that's a tribal feeling that they needed to stick with their own people, or whether it's a fear of being cast out of their community if they broke ranks, or a disregard for women's needs and concerns, or any number of reasons... that doesn't really matter.

Whatever they thought privately about transactivism, they were happy to go along with it if it was going to deliver them benefits, and they didn't stop to think if it was overreaching or it was undermining the social acceptance they relied on.

They didn't have to be geniuses to see it coming. Debbie Hayton saw it coming.

I understand that trans is a large umbrella.

But trans itself is based on trying to refined or ignore sex. Everyone caught up in this fundamentally wants this, regardless of their motivation.

They want to redefine woman as whatever a man can achieve, a man whatever a woman can achieve, and some want to remove man/woman/girl/boy distinctions completely. In otherwords make man and woman into self defined identities, and sex irrelevant.

If there was a significant number of TRA who did recognise sex and not 'queer' it, the GRA wouldnt be in its current form. Also, knowing that so many under the trans umbrella do want to make sex irrelevant, why would they identify as trans and not just a man?

Please can you tell me what are the contexts? Not trying to be goady, but interested if it falls inline with what I already have got in terms of research. What sexes use which toilet designs?

True.

My view will be biased by those I am most in contact with - who are a vulnerable group of people, most don’t have trans identities but a significant number do.

Their distress sometimes manifests as outward aggression and sometimes self harm. Either way, their struggle significantly impacts on their quality of life.

My job is to help them understand the thoughts and feelings that fuel their distress.

This may be true, and I am a bit sorry for the ones who just want to live and keep their heads down.

However:

1. Very, very few of those have spoken out and said 'not in my name'. They've just reaped the benefits of the climate of fear created by the aggressive wankers.
2. There's no way of keeping the aggressive vicious misogynists out and letting the nice ones in, even if we wanted to. So it has to be a hard 'no' to all men in women's spaces, however sad it makes them.

But again, I don’t see that women should have to feel particular empathy for a group of people who believe womanhood is a feeling, not a material reality. However they conduct themselves. It’s not my job to coddle these people.

With respect, you don’t know what they say when you’re not around. Go and hang out on most trans spaces online, they’re not very friendly to non compliant women.

None and none - within the contexts in which I work

There is as much diversity within the trans umbrella as there is outside of it.

The people supposedly representing and advocating for trans people do a lot of damage. They represent ‘wing’ of the trans population.