Guardian article by trans woman

You’ve put this far more eloquently than I was just about to try to!

The continued insistence of being marginalised and ignored is ridiculous.

On the gossip site that cannot be named: "No man can give birth - even if they do write for the Guardian."

That's an ok metaphor. Countries can be personified (and frequently are) and can therefore have a soul. Souls can be wounded. Can you kill a soul? Very possibly - Revelations may have something on it.
I don't care about mixed metaphors, however, but the idiocy of a woman who thinks she is a man but has done the most women thing ever: borne a child. She wants to replace the objective category of sex with the unverifiable and subjective category of gender and put everyone in their gender boxes. It's so regressive you would think Trump was for it (oddly, having read the room and presumably having DDs and GDDs, he is against it). The progressive left has dug itself a hole on this one - inevitably since misogyny is baked into the progressive left.

She is deluded. All I have seen from trans people is demands on women (never ever do they target men). Lesbians have been hung out to dry by both TIMs and TIFs (women who want to be men). This idea that they are hugely oppressed is just not what I have seen on the ground. They’ve controlled d & I for the last 6-8 years, they’ve captured key positions across feminist and LGB organisations (to a point where no LGB organisation exists that actually supports same sex attraction any longer except for the incredible LGB alliance - which TRAs have tried to shut down and pressure people in the LGB community not to associate with).

these are not the actions of an oppressed group who ‘just want to live their life’. Trust me, they’ve torn apart the gay community, don’t let them do it to mainstream communities

I often wonder if The Guardian really thinks this type of article is perfectly fine and reasonable, why not open it to comments?
They KNOW it's a load of codswallop.

There was a thread on Twitter about this and someone said that Freddy was only 38. I was shocked - Freddy's profile pic shows all too clearly the effect of T on a woman's appearance.

Yes, ironic that a whole part of the Supreme Court judgement talked about the importance of retaining pregnancy and maternity protections for people like Freddie.

Went to Primark today and the changing rooms on the ground floor say they are for women only (and we know that women = biological women, they don't have to say so to be challenged if they let a TiM in) and that there is a gender neutral one somewhere else (upstairs, I think). This may be progress. Doubtless Freddie thinks this is a loss of trans rights.😡

It would be discrimination against men who were not trans - which is illegal.

To be fair, if Freddie is fighting to remove laws that prevent sex discrimination and force people into gender boxes, that was the way thinks worked for centuries. It's not difficult to point to people who, like Freddie, want to return to this way of life. Perhaps Freddie could join Reform?

This is the woman who thinks she is a man and who has given birth to 2 children, and doubtless received all the maternity care and benefits which belong to mothers. If she is a man then she should have had none of them. And that would have been the situation had the SC decided that certificated sex was what counted.
Not a thought for women who don't want men in their groups and paces, not a thought for lesbians (though afaik she is one having a female partner) who have had their dating sites and their meetings trashed by men pretending to be lesbians. It's not she can't read the room - she is utterly deaf to any voice but her own and has not noticed the violence and vitriol thrown at women who have fought for women's rights (her rights).
Entitled and ignorant numpty.

This is a litmus test for the country’s soul, wounded as it is, though not yet dead.

If ChatGPT was asked to write a mixed metaphor in overwrought hyperbole and quasi-religious anthropomorphism.

It's okay, Freddie. Countries don't have souls. And I don't think souls even get wounded, let alone deaded. Isn't that the whole point?

And also just to add, transwomen should not have been given the alleged "right" to join women's clubs in the first place. Many have threatened clubs (like the women's pool league) with legal action if they refuse to allow transwomen.

"What they probably did not hear is that the EHRC’s interim guidance also says a women-only gardening club with more than 25 members will be legally required to exclude a trans woman, even if she’s legally a woman, and even if her fellow members want her there."

Having considered this I think that's correct (noting that of course doesn't prevent any transwomen from spending time with women in private or fewer than 25). The point is that it's legally a club with a specific membership criteria.

"Even if her fellow members want her there" isn't thought through. What does that even mean? What if one woman is looking for a male-free environment, perhaps because they have just escaped domestic abuse? What if two?

What if someone is new, escaping domestic abuse and wants to join a women's only club? Will the transwomen then be kicked out?

I appreciate it is unfortunate for those transwomen but perhaps they could join an LGBTQ club or a mixed club.

Yes, but in addition, the judgement points to the right to associate on the basis of biological sex:

' To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex (or sexual orientation based on biological sex as we have discussed above)'

No, maybe I framed it badly as 'having a laugh' - but, if anything, I was probably being too kind.

Maybe fraud, perjuror or liar might have been more accurate.

She can live her life however she wants; but when she starts legal cases to force obvious fiction to be acknowledged as fact - extending to fighting to falsify somebody else's important legal document proving their identity - that's grossly overstepping.

If she had just accepted that she likes to present in a stereotypically masculine way and be referred to as 'he' (by people who are willing) - but that she knows she is really female and thus wants to take advantage of that by getting pregnant and giving birth to a baby (presumably not whilst taking testosterone or other unnatural hormones that could harm the baby), I wouldn't quibble with her at all.

What they probably did not hear is that the EHRC’s interim guidance also says a women-only gardening club with more than 25 members will be legally required to exclude a trans woman, even if she’s legally a woman, and even if her fellow members want her there.

Surely they can include anyone they want in their gardening club.

The only thing they can't do is illegally discriminate against men and, having allowed some men to join the club, they can't have different terms of membership for men and women. This is basic civil rights.

Directly from the judgement:

(iv) Single characteristic associations and charities
229. Similarly, Schedule 16 paragraph 1 EA 2010 allows for an association to restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic (which would otherwise be unlawful discrimination in contravention of section 101(1)(b)). However, if sex means certificated sex, this exception from the sex discrimination provisions for single characteristic associations would not permit such associations with 25 members or more (see section 107(2) of the EA 2010 discussed above) to be limited to biological women. This is because, as we have said, a certificated sex definition of the protected characteristic of sex would include trans women with a GRC.
230. Nor would single-sex charities be able to use the exception in section 193, which allows them to restrict the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic in pursuance of a charitable instrument. So far as material, section 193 provides:
“(1) A person does not contravene this Act only by restricting the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic if— (a) the person acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and (b) the provision of the benefits is within subsection (2).

(2) The provision of benefits is within this subsection if it is— (a) a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or (b) for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic.”
231. Schedule 16 and section 193(1) plainly intend that single-sex associations and charities should be permitted to exist along with other single-characteristic associations. A certificated sex meaning applied to these exceptions would make it impossible for any women’s association or charity – including, for example, a mutual support association for women who are victims of male sexual violence, a lesbian social association, a breast-feeding support charity – to be set up or to pursue a dedicated purpose which is directed at the needs of biological females. To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex (or sexual orientation based on biological sex as we have discussed above).'

My bolding.

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042

Also, why the fuck does everybody ignore that the Amnesty International intervention in the SC case was given by a trans person? Why oh why does nobody think of the nonbinaries, etc.

'For its part, the supreme court refused to hear any interventions from trans people before deciding on its recent, devastating ruling.'

Agree, I think it becomes a channel for all these people’s energies, negative and positive. Displacement.

I don't think she's treating it as a laugh. I think she's high on her own supply. She's convinced herself that her and her fellow travellers' understanding of sex and gender is much more evolved and empowering than boring old obvious sex and now she's on a holy mission to convert society to a better way.

Once you get into that mindset, every person or group that tells you you are wrong is just taken as proof that you need to double down even harder on changing everyone's minds.

Freddy is the same individual who made a legal declaration that she intended to live the rest of her life as a man in order to get a Gender Recognition Certificate making her legally male, and then almost immediately embarked on a planned cycle of fertility treatment in order to have her first child. She has since had a second child.

If she is so very clearly treating it all as a laugh, and in so doing committing perjury, why does she think that anybody should listen to her opinions or declarations now? How on earth are we to know whether she's saying something in her 'ad absurdum' parlour game character or seriously?

At least on Call My Bluff, the panellists would always hold up a sign saying 'Bluff' immediately after they'd asserted something silly and untrue, to show that it was just part of the game and they didn't actually believe it - and presumably would only say things that they did genuinely believe once the TV cameras stopped rolling.

I think the biggest wonder is that anybody would believe that somebody who would fight to falsify her own child's birth certificate and wilfully deny them a legal record of something as fundamental as who their own mother is would somehow care about a whole load of women who are complete strangers to her who want to preserve female-only spaces.

Freddie talks about trans identifying individuals using the 'correct' facilities.
Correct for whom then, Freddie?