Should trans people have fewer rights? ‘Not in our name’, say over 35,000 women

Bee doesn't know the difference between 'rights' and 'privileges'.

True. They could all be men. To quote the TRA stance "we just can't tell!"

They're not all women. Actual women, I mean.

The endless niggling and manufactured statistics does however prove that women saying no is an ongoing, severe problem.

If it was all really 'no women really want rights or single sex spaces apart from you few dried up old hags that nobody likes and the law's on our side', why bother coming here at all and trying to force compliance or to convince people?

I find it interesting that bee thinks 36k is a significant number. I think it shows how little thought bee gives towards women that bee doesn't even realize how small a percentage it is.

This is all politics for the social media age.

Most people are not politically minded, nor particularly well versed in critical thought and yet they are still subject to social media imperatives - delivered in little memes and tropes which one is invited to 'like' or 'dislike' to signal their chosen identity, tribe or belonging.

The 'Be Kind' imperatives are everywhere too.

😁😁😁

it's so futile.

These few people agree with those few things, isn't an argument.

A tiny minority of women signed a petition

How do you know they were women?

So you are saying men have signed a petition saying they should have access to women’s rights?

People all have rights as people - make and females have equal rights, there is no other gender so any other group of people who choose different names have either less or more rights.

Astroturfing. Trying to create the impression of grassroots support by amplifying every teeny article/opinion piece in vanity self-published projects then linking back to those references and so on. These days wouldn't be surprised if it's also an attempt to influence the AI models by poisoning the well of information.

Trans people have the same rights as anyone else. However males who choose to identify as women do not get to be recognised as actual women under the law or access to women's single sex spaces, sports or to represent us because they are male. These sex based rights only can belong to women who are biological women, i.e. female. Trans identified males are not a subset of women or a type of woman they are men who choose to identify as women and out of politeness people go along with it but they are still men regardless of any body modification they choose to have or cross sex hormones they may take.

A tiny minority of women signed a petition on something they likely have given very little thought to and are just going with the crowd or are just being kind while not understanding that by doing so they are surrendering their own sex based rights (not to mention the many delusional men who likely signed this). None of that means that most people agree with this, 3 times as many people signed petitions to make it a law that fish and chips be served in old newspapers or that Raccoons should be allowed to be taken on walks! This petition means nothing and most people albeit silently agree with the gender critical stance even increasingly young people, sorry it's over for the fella's who want to trample all over women's rights and spaces.

I don’t understand why he does it other than for Reddit screenshots. It seems such a meagre life to lead. Quite threadbare.

That's what Bee always does. Drops some misinformation onto a new thread and then disappears, until a new bit of misinformation arises for them to plop onto mumsnet.

I think we're getting a very useful demonstration in many ways, yes. That women's needs, feelings, existence, everything, is only ever relevant to a man in this ideology when they are doing and performing precisely what he tells them to. Anything other than this pre programmed servicing is a sign of evil, they are broken service humans.

This isn't a healthy or functional or even a rational perspective, and yes, it's proving too that the only information that can be absorbed or considered is the twisted illusions from selected safe sources that go on propping up this personal world. There is no capacity to reason, to understand, to compromise or to even have basic respect for law. Or to see reality as it is. Hence the plopping and running posting.

It is sad, it throws a whole lot of new light on whether it was ever 'kind' to enable, and yes, it absolutely demonstrates to the EHRC exactly what kind of gatekeeping is going to be required to protect women from men who are so very determined to use them.

I imagine that the idea is that '36,000 say yes they're keen to take their clothes off and provide men with the experience of their bodies for those men's purposes' is supposed to mean the same as the line so often trotted about about 'most lesbians really want to sleep with men'. We're talking about half the human population. This is a ridiculously small percentage. And that's before anyone even starts looking at whether this actually was a representative group of women, because it very rarely is - in the same way as if you exclude all the actual homosexual women from a group for being homosexual, and then ask the women left if they're happy for their lesbianism to be bisexuality by another name you'll probably get a nice big statistic proving what you want. It's ridiculously childish.

If 36 women say yes and 1 says no, it does not mean that woman is a mean and nasty person who can now righteously be excluded while the other women revolve around the man and he can do what he wants.

It means that those 36 women and the man can go to the mixed sex space and have a lovely time together while that one woman - whose deeply held innermost feelings, intersectionalities, diversity, lived experience and all the other blethery words go completely ignored because she said no to a man - has a space she can use too .

You cannot exclude and use non consenting women, OP. Sorry. You can't. It is not a right men hold in law, and it is not a right any decent man would wish to hold in law. Women have rights as well as you. Which include being allowed to say no to you. You're going to have to make do with the consenting ones.

A lot of them who have been taken in by Jolyon and various cheerleaders about a supposed "u turn" or "backtracking" by the EHRC are going to get a BIG shock when the official guidance is published.

This GLP vs EHRC 'win' is a good thing. The EHRC will have re-learnt that their Guidance has to be absolutely crystal clear or it will be exploited by the desperate males trying to access women's things. Hopefully, they will take on board the feedback, particularly from organisations like Sex Matters.

Reminder, deadline for feedback from individuals or organisations is 11:59pm on 30 June - that's Monday!

These people thrive on spreading misinformation. Their whole worldview is based on a lie, after all.

Oh, they're doing that already.

Also criticising GCs for "reducing everything to sex", saying "Sufragettes fought for women not to be defined by their sex", that they're just thinking of the poor wimmins who will be affected by being a bit butch, etc etc.

But we see them.

I’ve noticed a few articles where it seems men wearing dresses are now trying to align themselves to women’s rights which is pretty sneaky. They tried to link themselves to Black Lives Matter too. It’s part of the Dentons playbook - align yourself with another popular cause and sneak in that way.
If they do manage to appear to be fighting for ‘all women’s rights’ I imagine they will then try and turn the majority of women against ‘terfs’ and frame it that terfs are nasty, and aggressive and against women for their own evil ends. Probably because they are middle aged and shouty and ugly and therefore resentful of lovely pretty women.
what does anyone else think?

@MarieDeGournay The article linked to in the OP, and the one in The National have both taken a minor point and blown it up to suggest that the entire EHRC guidance was wrong, was admitted to be wrong, and had been withdrawn.

It's infuriating the amount of false 'news'/absolute shite, I'm seeing published by TRA wrt these matters.

I mean these things are easily debunked but many readers/viewers won't bother with any fact-checking and will just take it on face -value and repeat as truth

Yes, it was an unfortunate that the Guidance left itself open to the accusation of 'getting it wrong', but that particular bit did not refer to the central issue of the SC ruling - which, despite all the toilet-related outrage, was not about who should pee where!

The article linked to in the OP, and the one in The National have both taken a minor point and blown it up to suggest that the entire EHRC guidance was wrong, was admitted to be wrong, and had been withdrawn.

If you read the totality of regulations - not just the Equality Act - it is clear that the
'gold standard' is separate sex toilets, with unisex toilets permissible in some circumstances. People planning or managing public buildings are not only bound by the Equality Act - there are building regs, workplace regs, health and safety regs, which are much more relevant to the rules about toilet provision.

The SC ruling was about the definition of sex, not about the provision of toilets in buildings. Nothing in the EHRC Guidance contradicted the ruling.

Causing confusion is the TRA modus operandi!

Wow powerful 👏

That’s always been the case, and it was in the original EHRC interim update, you just needed to read and understand it (easy enough to check the Workplace Regs and ACOP too).

So no, the EHRC has not backtracked and the GLP is being economical with the truth.