To think I can't be the only person who doesn't know a single trans person

[VioletSpeedwell]

Seriously.

The news is full of people worrying about how the SC ruling will affect people who identify as trans.

Where are they? Not in my office (large organisation), my family or social groups. I don't come across any in the village where I live or when I go into town.

DD is at university and doesn't know any trans people.

Surely, I can't be the only one?

Trying to use a pics as a gotcha is always silly. In real life, there are so many other indicators of sex in terms of gait, body language, relative size. And of course voice.

Such a boring "genuine question" which has been asked and answered many times.

In reality, if we met those people in real life rather than just looking at carefully posed pictures of them on the internet, we would almost certainly be able to tell that they are female.

And if not, well, why is this women's problem to solve?

A likely outcome of the Supreme Court decision is that we will have to start having a conversation about third spaces, which would benefit passing trans men.

One of those trans men is Freddy McConnell, who famously got a gender recognition certificate and then immediately had fertility treatment to get pregnant. Freddy has since had a second child. If the judgment had gone the other way, Freddy would not have been entitled to protection from discrimination on grounds of his sex, pregnancy or maternity. So I am pleased that the judgment confirms that people like Freddy's sex based rights are indeed protected.

The hatred on this thread is quite astonishing. I feel lucky to have a friendship group who are a safe space.

Do you understand the ruling? If women didn’t mean ‘biological women’ what would it mean? How could we ensure all female people are protected under the equality act without a word to describe them?

As it happens, nothing has changed for trans people at all. They still have protection under the equality act and that hasn’t changed. But now women can also have clear protections (as should have always happened - e.g. have female only prisons). Do you actually think that’s awful?

Don't know any trans people now as I live in a very rural area. But I knew one when i lived in London back in the 90s. They were rarer than hen's teeth then even in the 'great wen'.
She volunteered that she was trans. Although I had noticed her slightly thinning hair she passed fairly well otherwise. Matronly , like a primary school headmistress. Innocent days , before the Internet and before the trans movement was invaded by hordes of hetero men claiming to be lesbians. Whereas my chap was a classical effeminate gay man , I'd hazard. Very posh too , RP accent. Most of them were back then? April Ashley , Jan Morris et al. I wonder how they regard the new wave . Perhaps they see them as arrivistes, faddists who have ruined everything.

Exactly, so how would you ascertain if it was a woman in this scenario? How would you make a decision

So because they aren't your biggest fear, then other women must accept men into their rape counselling, domestic violence shelters, changing rooms and prison cells?

This ruling clarifies that legally you should be treated as your biological sex. What on earth is the issue with that?

I used to know a trans woman locally and they were amazing. Passed away quite a while ago now.

Which quotes are hatred?

Can you explain why you think it is awful that the Supreme Court has confirmed that female people have equal rights to trans people?

I know one trans person and a good friends niece is trans. I don’t have a huge social circle.

It’s the transphobic trope bingo card!

What is awful about the ruling? That the existing equality act that has been in place since 2010 has stayed the same? That men with GRC still have the same rights to equality in terms of employment, housing, education? That biological men have the same rights they always did?

or that the ideological have been caught out and that it has now been clarified that they do not have a free pass to access single sex spaces which they never had anyway. What’s changed with the ruling? Men have been told no. That’s all. And rightly bloody so.

The vast, vast majority of the time it will be perfectly obvious. I've come across many 'transmen' in my time, there are so many signs.

However, ultimately, every one knows what sex they are and we have to get back to the point where people respect others, respect the law, don't try to use faculties that don't belong to them, so we can regain a degree of trust.

All the 'transwomen' telling us that they will use women's faculties regardless are not helping that.

So are there so few trans people that nobody knows them or it a credible fear cis woman are facing on the daily? With more than 3 times transwoman murdered than cis last year I know who I think should feel more vulnerable

There she goes again stating facts that you don’t like/can’t accept/don’t want to hear?

This whole ideology is built on the premise of falsehoods, and is harmful for women and girls. If there was no harm in those falsehoods then we wouldn’t waste our time challenging it. What is it that makes it so impossible for you to believe that people can’t change sex and that TW are in fact men? I genuinely don’t understand how you can believe something that is so obviously untrue?

But a child was actually sexually assaulted. That's not a trope, it's a fact.

Are we to understand that you consider the occasional woman or child being assaulted by a man in a women's single sex space to be acceptable collateral damage for allowing trans people to use the toilets they believe match their personal identity?

Katie Dolatowski's victim would have been much safer if those toilets had been labelled mixed sex (which is what they were) rather than women, because then her dad (who was waiting outside while she was being assaulted) could have gone in with her.

I don't know any personally although I have seen a couple of transwomen in the local towns near me on occasion. One was last Saturday and the reason I even noticed them was the way they were dressed and the amount of people staring.

In a sea of hoodies, jeans, trainers and jackets, a bright red very short mini dress did massively stand out.

I don’t really understand this line of questioning because the alternative to this problem is self ID - meaning any man, no matter how he looks, could walk into a women’s toilet claiming he’s a woman and we could never question it. That is clearly a much more dangerous scenario than wondering about some masculine looking women.

With more than 3 times transwoman murdered than cis last year I know who I think should feel more vulnerable

This statement requires a credible source, emphasis on credible.

Ditch the CIS nonsense. I, as a biological female am not a subset of my own sex. (If anything, TW are a subset of men because you have to be a biological man to be a TW).

Where are you getting these figures? On average, one woman is killed every three days in the UK by a current or former partner. This translates to approximately 2 women per week. If TW were being killed in such numbers and at such a rate, we would all know about it and protections would be in place.

Someone born male who is now an adult is still male, still a man. Regardless of what he wears or self identifies as. I would argue that ‘transgender’ as a label is a misnomer. Why should we not be able to say ‘men who self identify as women’ or vice versa?
”I work with a man who self IDs as a women”
”Elliott Page is a female actor who self IDs as a man”
”Kaitlyn Jenner is a retired male Olympic athlete who now dresses as a woman.”

Let’s just be truthful.

What? Why on earth do you think this is true?

In the UK, between two and three women are murdered every week. Compared to less than one trans person per year on average.

How do you tell the difference between vile men and not-vile men when they’re in a space they shouldn’t be?

This is a ruling in the UK and there was precisely zero transwomen murdered last year. Many more women than that unfortunately.