Supreme Court ruling.

[Dobetterplease]

I don’t particularly care if this gets deleted and I get banned, if you are openly happy about the Supreme Court decision then you are the problem with society today.

Trans men and women are not the problem, they are not the reason for violence against women. However for whatever insane reason you have made them the subject of your ire and will stop at nothing to see them suffer for these perceived slights you think they have committed.

do you idiots not realise this implications this ruling has? Putting hundreds of thousands of people’s lives at risk, severely increasing the mental struggle trans people face before transitioning and increasing any shame they may already be experiencing.

Do you think these rules stop with trans people? They don’t. We aren’t living in the medieval ages where only white men had rights, this is 2025 so why don’t we start acting like it.

I actually cannot express the anger this brings me, to treat a fellow HUMAN BEING this way is beyond me.

Consider that what trans men and women label themselves as and what bathrooms they use is a) not really as deep a subject as you think and b) frankly none of your business.

Perhaps consider going outside and touching some grass.

This is no doubt why some people in my community sound so loud, or sound so rigid; it is draining dealing with you people.

Well, posting all the vile sexual threats online, death threats, pictures of knives, axes and baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire. Exhortations to die in a grease fire, punch a TERF in the face, decapitate TERFs and last week: "Bring Back Witch Burnings."

And you demand supportive, cuddly fluffy affirmations from women, for some inexplicable reason.

(I'm not saying it's you, personally).

OP hasn't been back, I see. How strange.

@Dobetterplease

Your side should take a hint from your name.

You very clearly haven’t even read the judgement.

OP hasn't been back, I see. How strange.

Indeed...didn't see that coming 🙄

Yawn, okaaay. So Trans people have not lost any rights at all.

The only change is the clarity on sex & that there are times when sex really does matter, especially for women.

It's not possible to change sex - it doesn't matter how strongly you try to believe that it's possible - it's not.

You have either: (a) not read the full ruling or (b) read it, but not understood it.

It clarifies the meaning of the Equality Act. Transpeople have no fewer protections than they had previously - something the judgement points out.

But I don't disagree with anything you say. This is such an emotive issue that you will always find someone who is unpleasant.

I do want trans rights and protections but I also want women's rights. In some cases these are the same things and in others, not.

Unfortunately, as someone who as previously worked in the criminal justice system, my experience of trans women is disproportionately negative to those that I have met in my normal life. I also know that this is not representative of the trans community in general but it was terrifying that some of these individuals could so glibly call themselves women and access women's spaces without question. Surely you must be able to understand why that is problematic?

Transwomen are just men. Like any other men. That they managed to persuade some of society that the laws said something different just demonstrates their male privilege.

Women are saying no.

There needs to be a middle ground for any discourse to move forward.

Threats of violence should always be called out and condemned for this to happen. How can the argument that trans women are not a risk to women have credibility when supporters carry placards that say they wish harm to women and make direct threats to them? Until this behaviour is recognised as wrong and stood up to by those in the movement who know threats of violence aren’t the answer (even if only in recognition that it doesn’t help their cause) then we remain stuck.

Stop asking for the moon on a stick, and we’ll stop saying no.

It really is that easy.

There is no middle ground between acknowledging reality and upholding a fantasy.

My community isn't huge. The number of sickos among my community does not equal or outnumber those from the straight non queer community.

This is the prosecutors fallacy. That because the numbers are low the risk is low. The risk you have to consider is not the overall population risk but the risk presented by a man pretending to be a woman - which we know is five times the risk presented by other men.

As for ‘queer’ - all the big names in queer theory advocate for paedophilia.

Bless. The lunatics are no longer running the asylum so you need to get over it. Maybe if the trans community hadn’t kept pushing our boundaries and trying to erase us permanently we might have a little compassion. But you did, so we don’t. Pretty sure B&Q sell grips is you need to go and get one.

Who are these big names, please?

We aren’t living in the medieval ages where only white men had rights, this is 2025

Indeed. Women have rights as well. The judgement was about clarifying what a woman is in law.

@CleaningSilverCandlesticksthe middle ground is in actually recognising the real problem, male violence, and working towards a solution together, not making enemies of each other.

Foucault, Rubin, Butler, Califa

‘We aren’t living in the medieval ages where only white men had rights’

And thank goodness we’re not. Have you noticed how furious the white men are about it?

Yet another goady one post wonder

Cismen are the biggest problem and always will be
the term "cis" is not needed. Men are the biggest problem.

Women are not transwomen.
Get over it 🤷‍♀️

It is not just about male violence; women deserve privacy, dignity, sports, equality, correct data and language too. All of this is destroyed when you allow men to pretend to be women.

Safety for women is not just about not being raped by a man. It is also have products designed, and medical treatments provided that recognise the differences between men and women. This cannot happen if men are allowed to have their data recorded as ours. Or having public information campaigns that obfuscate who it is aimed at or what the issue is.

Sorry mate, the answer is no and always will be.

Thank you. Will do some googling.