AIBU to think Maya scored a victory for common sense today?

[DancesWithTortoises]

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1402922169559044096?s=20

news.sky.com/story/maya-forstater-woman-who-lost-job-over-transgender-views-wins-appeal-against-employment-tribunal-12329249

The law just cannot be allowed to tell people what to think.

Hurrah for Maya!

Thank goodness

Right now as a post op transsexual the law permits me to use female spaces.

Women were never consulted about that & it's nothing to do with being "post op" it's due to holding a GRC which you can do regardless of whether you have a penis.
Plus as Eresh says there are provisions in the law for maintaining single sex spaces.

The ideology is redefining the word woman to ensure it includes trans women.

I struggle to understand why the word 'woman' has to be redefined to include transwomen, when, surely, transwomen have a right to exist -and do - as transwomen . And as transwomen, they have a word that exactly describes them without having to redefine a pre-existing word that describes others that are not transwomen?
Wouldn't it be better to create a brand new collective noun that encompasses BOTH women and transwomen without any need for redefinition - if you choose to define people together in that way, that is?

[quote Pumperthepumper]@jellybeansforbreakfast wants to have the conversation about compromise too. So it’s not just me.[/quote]
Don't mistake my wanting to talk for accepting a compromise that allows men in female single sex spaces.

I just want to hear how that conversation will go with women saying no!

@CuriousaboutSamphire come over to Mousey’s thread, some interesting points.

When I have a moment I will.

I struggle to understand why the word 'woman' has to be redefined to include transwomen,

In law you are either a man or a woman.

There's some bad advice on this thread, I wish people would read the legislation.

There are several instances named in both the Gender Recognition Act and The Equality Act where even a GRC does not give a person rights of the opposite sex, or the right to access a space or service intended for use by the opposite sex.

Right now as a post op transsexual the law permits me to use female spaces. The argument on here seeks to take that away.

As others have already said, this is not the case, in some circumstances. The la protects single SEX spaces/jobs etc if this is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

And it is the height of solipsism to think that women defending their LEGAL rights is just about “taking away” the rights of those with a GRC.

Indeed, it’s pretty much the other way around: organisations mobilising as much capital as they can to take away women’s rights.

Solipsism or good old fashioned bad faith ?

In law you are either a man or a woman.

Yes, and only male people with a GRC and female people are legally considered women, and there are some sex based exemptions which only apply to female people.

@BlueLipstickRocks

The onus should not be on women to sort out trans women’s wishes.

The problem is mamy women seem to want to take away transsexual rights.

Right now as a post op transsexual the law permits me to use female spaces. The argument on here seeks to take that away.

I think many women would feel a lot more sympathetic to your situation if we were not aware that if it were up to Stonewall our rights as women would have been trampled into the dust some time ago. You might well view your situation as being collateral damage in a battle you didn’t start, but as women we were facing legal, social and linguistic extinction, with our primary biological functions reduced to being bleeders, breeders and chest feeders. Are you not surprised we are fighting back?

viques

I think many women would feel a lot more sympathetic to your situation if we were not aware that if it were up to Stonewall our rights as women would have been trampled into the dust some time ago. You might well view your situation as being collateral damage in a battle you didn’t start, but as women we were facing legal, social and linguistic extinction, with our primary biological functions reduced to being bleeders, breeders and chest feeders. Are you not surprised we are fighting back?

I think many people are surprised. We are service humans, we're not supposed to malfunction.

it is the height of solipsism to think that women defending their LEGAL rights is just about “taking away” the rights of those with a GRC.

Not just about, no.

@Fieldofgreycorn

it is the height of solipsism to think that women defending their LEGAL rights is just about “taking away” the rights of those with a GRC.

Not just about, no.

It's not 'at all' about. These are our rights.

For goodness sake, sports and refuges were actually used as examples where women's singles sex provision needs to remain.

And yet they are targeted.

There should have been considered, reasonable discussion from the start. I think most women would have wanted that. Instead, we were threatened with death and rape threats, fired from jobs, doxxed, bullied, deplatformed etc etc simply for stating biological reality and our desire to retain single sex spaces.

Now the tide has finally started to turn, how is it a surprise that women are far less willing to put themselves in the firing line and be the ones to suggest solutions and compromises?

Right now as a post op transsexual the law permits me to use female spaces. The argument on here seeks to take that away.

Bad law, badly made, without consulting women or even regarding them as stake holders in appropriating female spaces and resources for male people to have as additional alternatives on top of all male spaces and resources.

After bloody YEARS of screaming about how this does not work for all female people, that some are excluded from female spaces if any male born person is using it regardless of how that male born person identifies and views themselves and their degree of transition, it's finally being realised that this is a major fucking problem.

So no, shutting up and tolerating it has been tried by women.

The GRC permits female only spaces to be protected under law, this has been made extremely difficult (intentionally, to the benefit of trans people and the unequal detriment and unequal care for the impact upon female people) and is only now being reinforced.

There do need to be answers for trans people and male people. But the time of mixed sex spaces for all (who can) and oh well, sucks to be them but male people's needs and feelings should be every female's priority are thankfully over. New and better solutions needed for all. Not ongoing emoting and nagging at females to stop standing up for their needs, their feelings, their rights, and take care of male people before themselves.

The 'roll back of rights' feels more to me like the person who snatched my bike is now moaning that by demanding that they return it is making them feel bad and how do I now expect them to get to work.

I may be stealing your bike analogy... It's what I was thinking when I tried responding.

This is curious, I'm seeing several posts today that stress how people are post operative.
Surgery is not a requirement for a GRC. It never has been, its considered a human rights issue to demand people sterilize themselves to obtain one.
Women using a service have no way of knowing if someone is pre or post operative.

It's bloody obvious what bloody awful law it is just by looking at a polite, civilised discussion here from people on both sharp sides of it.

Transwomen would really like female people to stop pointing out the insurmountable issues of sex that prevent many female people easily or at all being able to use mixed sex spaces, and standing up for their needs and the return of respecting and meeting female sex based needs, because it prevents them from having and using the spaces and resources they would like.

Female people would really like to stop having to constantly defend their rights, resources, spaces and language and for female needs, feelings and identities to matter as much as male people's do, and for all female people to have access to public spaces including toilets, instead of some of them having to give up, surrender the ground and leave altogether for the more important male people.

Not really doing a good job in creating good feeling, harmony and happy coexistence is it? #massivefuckingfail It's just pitted two groups head on together.

But the root of the issue is the massive, massive sexism that female spaces, resources etc are seen as resources available for male people to take as they feel they need to in the first place, instead of seeing the issue as being the need to create new, additional spaces and add the sex based needs of female people into the equation.

The GRC permits female only spaces to be protected under law, this has been made extremely difficult (intentionally, to the benefit of trans people and the unequal detriment and unequal care for the impact upon female people) and is only now being reinforced.

The law does indeed do so but under certain specific conditions. You cannot apply the exemptions of the GRA to every situation.

I would note that the issue was never towards those with a GRC (5000 in 15 years) but with the 600k to 1 mil who claimed access to womens spaces based on Stonewalls agenda. When you limit access to those who are GRC holders you remove over 99% of those using said spaces at a stroke.

The same legal system that protects gender critical beliefs also says someone with a GRC is legally female. The rights that includes very specifically were addresses in the ruling.

This ruling doesn't suddenly make me a man and men's problem. I am legally female even though some will disagree. I am every bit as annoyed as most on here with a toxic agenda that turns transsexualism into a lifestyle choice. I have no desire to be the enemy. I entirely oppose any intact male bodied person in a womans space but for exactly the same reason I believe a non intact transsexual faces the same threat as do women were they to use a male space.

It is equally correct to say you cannot apply the GRC accommodations to every circumstance.

And that is where the debate should have started. Not in saying all people born make can access single sex female spaces if they have a GRC unless there is an objection but discussing the difference between public perception and the reality of what it is to be trans what it takes to gain a GRC.

But TRAs Stonewall etc jumped straight to Self ID and all men are women on the days they say they are.

Don't expect to out that genie back in the bottle.

I would have thought from a practical point of view a post op transexual using the men's would be far easier.
No queues and they do still have cubicles, seats etc.
Only thing missing is a sanpro bin.

Not in saying all people born make can access single sex female spaces if they have a GRC unless there is an objection but discussing the difference between public perception and the reality of what it is to be trans what it takes to gain a GRC.

As much as some would wish to the reality is that transsexuals exist and have done for a long time. With self ID having been quite rightly defeated and yesterday's ruling we are able to finally address the bullying and harassment by Stonewall into a ridiculous agenda and have conversations. Factually irrespective of some people's personal wishes transsexuals such as myself are legally female and there is no realistic possibility of arguing that should be revoked.
TS people have opposed self id for many years and stood alongside women. TS people supported Maya in court and I personally spoke to Maya at the start of all this. It saddens me that the fact my birth sex was male makes me the enemy.

The solution requires a reasonable compromise position. It not to revoke the GRA and take back certain rights. That solution I feel says no to intact male bodied people, allows GRC status to be seen as needed, and introduces strict legal penalties for those attempting to access a space without a GRC.