Don't know how to explain how I feel about the SC decision

[Stripeysuitcase]

Hi,

Sorry if this is the millionth post on this. I am struggling with articulating my feelings about yesterday's verdict, and I'm struggling to discuss it with friends. I am pro womens rights but also pro trans rights, and I can't see how to articulate how I feel succinctly.

To put it very briefly I think anyone should be comfortable in being who they want to be, but not at the expense of someone else's fear/discomfort around who they are. I have been sexually abused and support women's single spaces. I have also been negatively affected by working in male dominated spaces. I feel very clearly that my life would have been far easier and happier had I been born a man.

I can't explain how I feel in that being a woman is about growing up as a woman, millions of little decision I make and have made is influenced by the fact that I am and have always been a woman. That is around fear, discrimination, complexity of emotions, different biological experiences (like periods, strength, body shape) etc etc. I feel that these are mine because I'm a woman, and they can never belong or be properly understood to someone who has grown up as a man.

I don't know why this is so important to me. I feel like I have and want to validate this, to defend it, to be allowed to have my experiences and feel the fear, sadness and pain that has been - and still will be in my future - associated with being a woman.

At the same time I often work within the trans community and they are also completely valid in their experiences and probably feel the same - Not included, disadvantaged, looked down upon. For not the same reasons, but with the same effect on them.

Please, does anyone have any advice as to how to articulate this to friends, family and peers? I really struggle with my words sometimes and have a lot of social anxiety. I am terrified of having any conversations around this.

I feel like I have to pick a side. I don't want to pick a side. I want everyone to be supported in the best way and I don't know how to do that.

Firstly I'm pleased this has been engaged with in good faith, not always the case on aibu.

Secondly, why the need for validation? It's a luxury in societies where peoples material needs are there main concern, sadly that includes the UK. Luckily the EA still protects trans people against discrimination that would impact those material needs. It's their validation/identity needs that are now not protected at women's expense.

Thirdly, it's fine for to you/women to demand their rights. Ignore your discomfort, thats the patriarchy on your shoulder. We are under no obligation to be 'kind', only civil and non discriminatory.

I'm saying this is how some people can interpreted it as anti trans.

OP, you are trying to square the circle. You agree with the ruling and that women's sex based rights must be protected, whilst also having sympathy for the challenges faced by trans people and a willingness to support the trans community in their fight for, for example, third spaces.

You are looking for a way of expressing those views that makes it clear that you are not transphobic. Your difficulty is that some people will consider your position as transphobic and no amount of trying to find the right words will change that. If people find your position offensive that is not your problem to solve.

What you're describing is essentially what JKR expressed in her famous essay, and look how that went down with the TRAs.

I think it's worth remembering that the ruling does not mean that trans people cannot ever use facilities or services designated for the sex they are a identifying into. What it does mean is that those services and facilities have an option of making them single sex, If they consider it appropriate and proportionate. From some of the discussion about the ruling today online and in the news , you would think that somebody had told trans people , they weren't allowed to be trans anymore , and that is simply not the case. We All need to keep this in perspective.
So in relation to the op's post, I think in saying that you think the ruling is a good thing, You are not saying that that you do not think trans people should have rights, You can just be saying that you are glad that the law has Been made clearer for everyone.

If transwomen fear male violence when using male spaces they need to campaign for third spaces, and campaign against male violence. Women are not responsible for any transphobic behaviour by violent males.

A lot of the problems and anxiety for trans people and women can be laid directly at the feet of Stonewall. They are culpable for all the hurt and fears. They used up their goodwill by rolling out Stone- law, which they knew to be incorrect (they even boasted about getting ahead of the law) to “advise” about “correct” practices and shut down any dissent- #no debate.

Women were let down by Stonewall as they rolled back women’s rights and trans people were let down as they were told they were now the opposite sex.

This means that the ruling has come as a shock to trans people.

They should not be angry at women, they should be angry at Stonewall. As should any entity who followed their advice.

p.s. I used to be a fervent supporter - back in the days we were marching for the rights of LGB people. The forced coupling of the T is where it went wrong. It is why some original founders of Stonewall left - it really was forced.

Don’t get me wrong, trans people should and must have the right to live their lives how they want - as long as they don’t try to trump others’ rights. So transwomen should have all the same rights as men and transmen should have the same rights as women.

This is why this whole debate has been so difficult and why there was no easy fix. I also think you have explained it very well in your own post. Trans women are female but are driven by the positive experiences of womanhood. (I don't think anyone is saying I'm a female so I can be judged, scared, patronised) unfortunately as we know The female experience is not all sunshine for a lot of us for a varying amount of reasons. What I am concerned at is that we try and fix the problem by ignoring the rights of other groups in this case girls/women which was never going to work.
I am also concerned At the backlash of nasty launched at anyone brave enough to stand up to this (well done JK Rowling) anyone who thinks she's a bigot has willfully ignored researching her in order to jump on a bandwagon.

Time for men to step up and make male spaces more comfortable for transwomen.

Why do you need to articulate anything to your friends?

You don’t need to pick a side.

honestly that’s the problem with so much of this debate.

you say something like “it’s a very difficult area and I find it really hard it’s a pity both nerds cannot be met”.

or just stay as silent as possible.

This is rather key to remember.

I think the key point here is that both women's needs and trans people's needs should be met, but when it comes to single sex spaces, services and sports, the needs of both groups cannot be met together and must be met separately.

The Supreme Court judgement articulates this very well. In situations where a single sex space or service is provided for women, it must satisfy the criteria in the Equality Act which justify the exclusion of members of the opposite sex (which constitutes direct discrimination). If the justification is that women may reasonably object to the presence of a biological male, the reasonableness of their objection cannot be founded in how that biological male identifies, or in particular whether they possess a gender recognition certificate or not. In other words the impact for women of allowing a trans woman into a women only space is the same as the impact of allowing a man into that space. So if you allow a trans woman into a women only space, you have defeated the purpose of that space existing from the point of view of the women who need it. From a practical and moral standpoint, this means the women's needs are not being met. And from a legal standpoint, it probably means that you are now directly and unlawfully discriminating against men on the ground of sex, because you have no longer met the legal criteria which justify excluding them.

Trans activists would have us believe that there would be no conflict between the rights of women who want single sex spaces and trans women who want to be in women's spaces if women stopped being bigots and just accepted that trans women are women.

They are wrong and unreasonable, and the judgment makes it clear that they are wrong and unreasonable.

The provision of single sex spaces and services which exclude people of the opposite sex regardless of their gender identity has been confirmed by the Supreme Court to be both legitimate and lawful.

That means that the trans community and their allies need to come up with some alternative suggestions to secure trans people's rights which do not require women to accept trans women in our single sex spaces and sports.

Trans people have the right to be safe, to be included in society, to get changed, use the toilet and receive counselling in ways that respect their dignity, to compete in sport and otherwise participate fully in public life.

What they do not have the right to do is do these things in the same space as unconsenting women. Women who just want the same rights, and which in women's case require the exclusion of all male people in order for their needs to be met.

Trans women are female but are driven by the positive experiences of womanhood.

That's one of the many problems with this issue. Transwomen are biological males. They have trans'ed over into women so their starting point is male. Language really does matter but Stonewall and TRAs have messed around with it so much that most people think transwomen are being excluded from the areas of their biological sex. They are not.

I suppose a lot of the problem for some women is that we don't understand why anyone would want to identify as a women because being female sucks. Periods, menopause, societal expectations around dress and appearance, boobs, sites of fat deposition, lack of upper body strength. Having to actively avoid conceiving if you don't want kids added to the stress of pregnancy if you do.

I don't like being female, but can't identify out of the worst bits. I could take drugs to bin periods, pay for surgery but there are side effects so I can't just "identify" out of the shit bits of being female by saying "I'm male/non binary". If I could, I absolutely would... While I'm at it, I'd like to be a bit taller and lose 20kg...

Have you read this piece from today's Guardian? I found it very interesting.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/16/supreme-court-definition-woman-judges-law

That is because womens rights have been positioned as being "anti trans" as an attempt to silence.
It has created a culture of fear which puts women like you in the position you're in.

If males being prevented from having free access to female sex protected spaces is considered to be "anti trans" then that is an issue for trans activists to cope with, not women, and by default, not you either.

If challenged you can remain factual - males have been prevented from accessing female spaces.
If queried/goaded, this is not an "anti trans" stance because trans identified females have unlimited access female only spaces - the ruling is anti male in female space, and they only make up half of the trans population, not its entirety.

Thanks everyone for your really great answers, it's all super helpful in helping me put how I feel into words. What I want to do is avoid a panic or situation where I upset someone through the misinterpretation of my words.

As an example and without identifying details I once worked with someone on a job involving non binary people, who was sacked when she asked someone not to use the term TERF. A non binary person complained about lack of free speech. What the person who was sacked was saying is that they didn't want any derogatory terms used towards anyone, for any reason. I was really shocked at the outcome.

This is what I'm afraid of, it's not always possible to not have an opinion or answer when directly approached.

Is that person still within the time limits for an employment tribunal claim? Because it sounds like they were unlawfully dismissed and could be entitled to some compensation.

OP, you need new work in a less toxic environment.

Stripey, that is a really tough situation. Are you still in that workplace?

Well this is horrendous. That's a highly problematic working environment, no?

Sorry I don't want to detail the thread to talk about that issue, it was a while ago and didn't involve me directly but did impact me.

I think what I mean and why I brought this up is that sometimes I work with vulnerable people, and rightly or wrongly, having views or beliefs that doesn't align with theirs can cause issues.

Whatever view I take, I understand that it's such an emotive topic and just the wording used can cause upset.

I've just had a read of this. I notice he links to another guardian article to show that transppl are twice as likely to experience "violent crime" than cis, But
Then the article that it links to is talking about hate crimes, which is not just violent crime.It can also involve verbal abuse , online abuse etc. And The statistics for these type of crimes are especially influenced by how much they are reported. So That part of the article is misleading and incorrect.It just makes me distrust The whole article and this writer. And im quite sad because Over the last five years or so I ve just realized that the guardian is not what I thought it was.

If your i

Sorry, pressed send too soon.

If your job is going to be jeopardised for expressing perfectly reasonable views that other people just don't like, then I'd consider that a huge problem.

This is very tricky, especially given your subsequent update.

I think I would stick to discussing the legal implications of the judgment and try not to express your own opinion about it.

So you could say something like, "Now this point regarding the definition of sex in the Equality Act has been clarified, everyone knows where they stand. The judgment cannot be appealed, so this is now the legal position unless parliament repeals or amends the Equality Act. Our fight now needs to focus on ensuring that trans people's needs are met. For example, in situations where women are entitled to have single sex spaces or services, we need to make sure that trans people have separate but equivalent provision."

And I probably wouldn't shy away from pointing out that it is illegal to discriminate against someone for having gender critical views.