James Murray on R4 just now - TWANW

I agree with you. This isn't an issue for women to solve and in my submission to the NZ amendment bill I said the confusion about not having a clear definition for a men and women disproportinatley effects women.

I have also been emailing the Human Rights Commission and my local MP asking them to give clearer guidlines to gyms regarding permitting males in single sex female changing rooms as I am being indirectly discriminated against because no gym can guarentee when I was into a changing room that there will not be a man in there.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a threat to transwomen which comes from the same route of misogyny that women deal with all the time. To preven the SCR from going backwards we are going to have to start giving the TRAs an out, so they can get their attention by campaigning for something acheivable.

I suspect he never believed it in the first place. Secretly grateful to Justin Webb .

Anecdotal evidence cannot be proven, so forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Plenty of posters here also have anecdotal evidence that there is no more risk to trans-identified men than for other men. So we'll have to leave it at "anecdotal."

All of which is by the by: If men of whatever persuasion stay out of female single-sex spaces, then what happens to men is for men to figure out. Not women's problem.

The situation needs a ‘safe space’ campaign.

I don’t believe I have seen anyone of influence take up that campaign. I know that Fionne and Miranda Yardley tried to get something off the ground to that effect.

If any male person is in danger in a male single sex provision, that needs to be fixed.

I have anectdotal evidence. I have seen transwomen/non-binary men be targeted by groups other men and I think trans women would be at risk in the male toilets in the same way that any gay man would be i.e. private space with no cameras.

The risk is different profile is differnent because of the sex. A transwoman would be much more at risk of physical violence for example and much less risk of sexual violence i.e the violence that women experience.

None of this means that tranwomen should be permitted into the female spaces. It does mean that we can recognise there is a need for an alternative in certain situations. I understand that Trans people are really worried about being "outed" in the same way that gay people were because it would materially effect their ability to participate in life. How true this is I couldn't tell but we can make space in society for them to exist without it causing any extra issues for women.

Yes, the "permanent position" is key. Politicians lie. In my opinion, that's all they ever do. It's expedient for him to say this now.

However, I think it's important that people hear him say it. The more people speak the truth, the more people will feel able to speak the truth.

What comes next is what I'm interested in. Words are cheap. Implementation is everything.

Speaking from the island to the west of Terf Island, I am envious - our health minister is full-on TWAW, speaks about the need for specific transgender healthcare etc etc
.
When she called to my house before the last election, I asked her my go-to [and very useful and productive] question for canvassers:
'You don't really believe that men can actually become women, I mean, really?'
asked in a friendly tone of voice.

Her face changed. She literally as in literally literally, recoiled. She started burbling about inclusivity as she moved swiftly away from the doorstep.

It was very revealing, showing the power of that simple challenge: do you really believe that TWAW?

Well done, Terf Islanders, for getting to the situation where senior politicians - whether genuinely or for expediency - are now prepared to say 'no I don't' in public.

If he's serious when he says "..single sex spaces within the NHS need to be protected on the basis of sex", then he needs a copy of Knotty Auty and team's audit of health bodies' policies.

And he needs to read it, every word, and then do something about it.

I think we all understand that there would be many political people who would follow the current direction of political power. Whether that has been due to them reading and listening and reaching a deeper understanding or political expediency.

I think with some of these men though, it is good to remain sceptical and expect flip flops depending on what is good for them at the time. It is good though if he has reached a permanent decision to support female single sex provisions with no special exclusions for any male person who has a transgender identity.

It doesn't matter what he really thinks, if he says he believes in the SC definition and protecting women's spaces then he won't be actively thwarting attempts to ensure toilets, wards and changing rooms are single sex. We might have had to drag them kicking and screaming to this position but once they have recanted TWAW they are no longer an active trans ally and effectively out of the game. We are rolling all this nonsense up albeit slower than we might like but the direction of travel is clear now and inexorable. It is definetley a win.

I don't think any woman would deny that TW would be more unsafe than other men in male single sex spaces. Transwoman are constantly bullied in public

2021x, I would deny the assertion in your first sentence. Plenty of posters here have disputed that (both men and women). Is there evidence that trans-identified men are unsafe in male single-sex spaces?

As for being "constantly bullied " do you have any concrete evidence of that? How would you define "bullying" because some activists (and others) seem to define it as "saying anything I don't want to hear."

I wonder why it isn't universally accepted.

I can't tell if it is gay politicians projecting their own shit onto the trans community i.e. taking Gender Dysphoria out of the DSM, or if people genuinely believe that you can change your sex.

If trans women were really women, they wouldn’t need the adjective in front of it. Good on him!

I agree, people in general just zoned out they never truly believed it and most people would be performative to the trans person.

I had an interesting conversation to day with someone whose son has several trans friends and knows someone else with several trans friends. The older friends all worked in academia and pyschology. She didn't seem that bothered by it, and hadn't thought about what it meant for women and she hates men.

This is thanks to FWS and the Supreme Court ruling. They’ve earned a joyous spot in the telling of this story when we finally get through all of it.

I heard him. He was very unequivocal and I was delighted to hear it. I believe we’re at a very dangerous juncture: the SC ruling is not universally popular in parliament and the possibility of changing equality law is being openly spoken about. This is the last thing we want. Imagine being taken back to the state Australian women find themselves in! The more MPs who speak out in favour of reality the better. Whatever his motives, I’m glad he’s done so.

And I think it’s important to note that TWAW really was a thought-terminating cliche, ie many, many people did genuinely stop thinking. They didn’t “pretend,” they just embraced the cognitive dissonance as a sign that discomfort = challenging themselves to Be Kind.

They now have to think through how TWAW sits against the reality of biological sex, which breaks the thought-termination cycle. I’m sure there are still true believers out there, but as we’ve seen time and time again they can’t put together a reasonable argument. That’s why they’ve resorted to harassment & intimidation for so long. Stopping people from spelling out what TWAW actually meant for women was the only strategy they had.

I don’t think most politicians who decried that TWAW ever believed it so he’s probably just relieved that he now doesn’t have to lie for his career.

I didn't say 80% of labour currently believes TWAW. Although I do think a sizeable number of them decided to be quiet about their true feelings post the SC ruling.

The issue with any type of bullying/cult type behaviour is that it prioritises short term wins over the slower but more sustainable long term gain. There was this huge drive to force people to behave in a certain way, which was conducted with threats, intimidation and pillorising people like JK Rowling etc. to demonstrate their social power. Politicians have to be voted in and they were probably looking at the way other public figures had been treated and saw that the public didn't really care so they chose to take the side of transpeople.

This can only really work for a certain number of years before reality hits. Unless you were a woman who found themselves alone with a male in a female space you probably didn't think about it that often. I certainly didn't until I was in a changing room and a man walked in saying their were trans. I was terrified.
For most people I think the issues became really public, with the inclusion of Transwomen and DSD athletes in sports as there was a clear an undeniable advantage and transpeople saying that they were female and denying their advantage on television with no push-back.

I don't think any woman would deny that TW would be more unsafe than other men in male single sex spaces. Transwoman are constantly bullied in public and would be at an increased risk of physical violence so I could see how some of them were desperate, but I suspect a majority of the TW that were pushing for entry in the female spaces had other motives.

…which has been the core position on these boards for sodding years. Trans people should have dignity & respect, yes. Just not at the expense of women’s hard-won rights. There needs to be balance in law and policy, just as there is for rights between all groups in a liberal democracy.

It’s only been in the last few years that we’ve had some genuinely reactionary people trying to glom onto “sex realism” to make their anti-feminist, pro-authoritarian agendas seem more reasonable, which many of us pointed out over a decade ago was the likely outcome of TWA(literally)W.

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/2061354427756196230

Paraphrasing interviewer: [You previously said that TWAW, have you changed your mind?]

'Yeah I have changed what I would say. I wouldn't say that phrase anymore ... I think that over the last few years a lot of us, myself included, have thought about this question in some detail. The SC obviously ruled very clearly that biological sex is what matters when it comes to the EA in determining single sex spaces. I believe sss shoudl be protected on the basis of sex, biological sex, while at the same time believing in dignity for trans people, recognising that sex and gender are different things ... single sex spaces within the NHS need to be protected on the basis of sex.

Labour are supposedly in power.

80% of Labour MPs did used to say TWAW - even if they didn't really believe it.

I think it does matter if he secretly believes that TWAW. Imagine if Westminester elected 80% of ministers who all lied and said TWAW but secretly were pro-trans. Once in power, they could do change the law with those numbers on their side.

I agree! But that no longer matters......what matters is that he now has to speak commonsense truth and implement the ruling.