European Convention on Human Rights

Only by your post at 18:04 yesterday, you also said

I am not a biological woman

You're the one doing the over reacting and dramatisation here. Just get on with your life and at the same time respect the boundaries and protections that have been created for female people. If you actually had any empathy with women, you'd understand this; Rather than 'identifying as' it would be far more progressive to 'identify with'.

But it is not legal or remotely appropriate for you to use facilities designated for female people.

Not everything is about people with trans identities, Other groups have dignity and rights too. The role of the ECHR is to manage those different needs.

The recent Supreme court ruling made clear the law as it has always been. Men with trans identities were never actually legally permitted to use female only facilities. Nobody has been "banned". Legal clarity and respect for the boundaries of other protected groups has simply been restored.

It is not just about toilets, either. it is about every facility or category that is deemed single sex.

Yes, how surprising that men are centred and women and their needs ignored.

I liked the post where a TIM was concerned about distressing men by changing in a men’s changing room with their breasts out. But distressed women are nothing to them.

Men are always the most important.

HRT doesn’t do anything for trans people as it’s not possible. You’re not replacing anything. What you’re having is cross-sex hormone therapy and while it may help you develop some secondary sexual characteristics it’s not changing your underlying biology.

This thread highlights the importance and significance of the provision of effective counselling to enable informed consent to be secured prior to decisions being made to undergo cross sex hormone treatment and gender affirming surgery.

In the past, in order to access treatment, doctors needed to be confident that patients understood that the treatment wouldn’t alter their sex, that they understood the challenges that having a body with atypical sex presentation creates, in addition to understanding the physical side effects.

In the last 25 years, gender identity services have acted appallingly. Their fluffy, cosseted approach of ‘affirming gender’ and ignoring sex has contributed to patients making irreversible changes to their bodies without having a full and informed wider picture of the impacts.

Some patients would have opted for treatment regardless. However, many wouldn’t. I have met lots of patients who regret the physical intervention they received due to the impact this has had on their dating pool. Others regret it because they realise that it didn’t and couldn’t relieve their symptoms. I expect, going forward, there will be a new set of regrets relating to having been mislead about the law.

Some patients will be happy with the outcome of their treatment despite the above. This is great. What needs to follow is them being respectful of the laws relating to natal sex and acceptance that their treatment doesn’t make them eligible to be classified as the opposite sex in contexts where sex matters.

I accept that it’s shitty for those desperate to be the opposite sex when they can’t be. This is not dissimilar to those who are blind and wish they could see.

This thread, and many others, make it abundantly clear that you using female only provision negatively affects a significant number of woman.

The country is founded on liberty but laws that constrain freedoms are in place to protect the rights of others.

This boils down to: A many females object to males using single sex provision for females. Despite this, and despite the SC ruling, you - trans identifying male - choose to use them and try and justify this by stating/ believing: you are not a man, your family and friends say it’s ok, you pass as female, it’s transphobic not to include transwomen in female only provision.

At its core, your insistence on using female-only spaces, despite being told by women that your presence makes those spaces inaccessible to them, boils down to this: your comfort matters more to you than their consent, dignity, needs, or safety. That isn’t inclusion. That’s entitlement.

Third spaces are the most inclusive way forward. Whilst they don’t reflect your preferred choice, they do provide privacy and safety for all. You may be fooling yourself and others that you are fighting for inclusion, but the model of ‘inclusion’ you are fighting for is steeped in misogyny.

As a member of the L part of that 'community' [nobody consulted us about tacking on the T part - different community, different identity, different issues] the reactionaries attacking us are the trans people who appropriate our identity, disregard our sexual preferences, and exclude us if we don't play along with men being lesbians.
I'll celebrate when that changes.

Yet again, Operation Let AYoungTransWoman Speak is paying dividends:
useful confirmation here that 'third spaces' [actually fourth spaces, the accessible toilet is the third space] may be a waste of time, space and money, transwomen don't want them and insist on using the women's toilet because they 'are women'.

Yeah, that, of course.

There is some truth in that. Neither you nor I will ever experience the fear of being made pregnant by a man against our will.

It's not a crime for me to use the toilet omg

Women who are defending their legal rights to safeguarding, privacy and dignity are not over obsessed weirdos.

It's irrelevant what your mum and best mate think. If they think you should break the law and drink drive, should you do it?

The answer is still no.

The law will one day change, and we'll celebrate like we did the last time the LGBTQ+ community faced attacked from reactionaries.

It is never wise to trust the words of the yeswomen you have surrounded yourself with.

That is not the way the rest of the world will see you.

General 'you', BTW - it's good advice for anyone. The same applies to yesmen, too.

He also thinks there is surgery that will give him the primary sex characteristics of a woman, but he has not told us what operations achieve this. The surgery he thinks he understands will give him only, at best, the appearance of women's secondary sex characteristics.

It's not 'obsessed weirdos on the internet', it's the vast majority of the British public. Fortunately.

Trust the adults on this; the SC ruling is not going to be struck down (by who?), or anything like that. What it has done, as been said many times, is clarified what the law always was. No laws have been changed, and existing protections under the law continue.

Do you have female chromosomes then?

The women in my life see me as a woman soooo I'm gonna trust them over obsessed weirdos on the internet as I actually value their opinions lol

I have read it, what needs to happen now is parliament needs to change the law to override it.

I'm not a man.

I recommend you read the SC ruling, and then if necessary re-read it until you understand it. It is very clear.