TRAs deface Millicent Fawcett statue

[Peony1897]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/19/transgender-activists-deface-millicent-fawcett-statue/

How dare they.

I have been somewhat in awe of the lack of background research into some of the people that media channels have been getting on to speak. If the public did their research and understood the backgrounds of the speakers, or even just listened carefully rather than just nodding to what they say, I think that those spokespeople would be seen as being detrimental.

But sadly, media agencies haven't done their background checks with any critical eye and people who unthinkingly support the groups certainly are not about to do those checks either.

Have any of the unhinged responses yet explained why it should be required to erase the entire history of the female struggle for recognition in law and the entire basis of sex in the Equality Act to make it a uniquely undefinable category? And why trans people should have the protection of their birth sex, their certificated sex AND gender reassignment while women have absolutely nothing that addresses sex as an axis of oppression? And who that benefits? And how it's any different from the right railing against EDI?

Adequate unisex provision of changing rooms and toilets.

They could also argue that some legal sex discrimination is unnecessary and that there is a conflict of rights - in the same way that I could argue that exceptions that allow sex discrimination because of religious belief conflict with my right not to be discriminated against because of sex.

Right, but who is going to spearhead this campaign?

The trans rights lobby seems to be preparing itself to double down and defy the judgment.

This all seems eminently sensible.

I do find the word sincere belief has been used across media and in discussion as if it should be significant. But after all the discussions I have seen, read or been part of, I too have concluded that the use of the words 'sincere belief' seems to be meant to convey this concept of someone who is truly transgender. While I understand someone may feel profound gender dysphoria, the issue still remains that they are not materially what they believe they are, it is a philosophical belief about their identity. It therefore should be treated as such.

In the discussion about rights, it is irrelevant. Which may be hard for some people to acknowledge.

What other sincerely held philosophical beliefs are to be given priority over another group's rights? I feel great concern at any parent who thinks that their child is in the wrong body.

I suppose, trying to put myself in their shoes for a second, if you genuinely believe that trans women are women, you wouldn't see it as trans women wanting their rights to trump women's rights, but as some women wanting to deny women's rights to some other women.

This would have been more in line with an overarching aim of feminism - to abolish gender, to abolish social expectations attached to sex. It shows how much some branches of feminism have moved away from that aim that they want every aspect of 'gender identity' legislated for. It would be vastly more supportive of trans people and better for their mental and emotional health to have a lot of that pressure off, same for everyone else.

Even if they genuinely see trans women as women, they still know sex and gender are two different things. Or so they keep telling us.

What other sincerely held philosophical beliefs are to be given priority over another group's rights?

Religious groups aren't subject to the usual rules on sex discrimination.

However they don't have the right to demand that society in general shares their belief.

Exactly.

Of course that is wrong, but yes, they regard it as gatekeeping womanhood and women's spaces from a group of (already vulnerable in their eyes because trans and may not pass) women.

Again, not my belief, but this is what many trans people and their supporters think.
Once you understand this is all makes more sense. Again, doesn't mean you need to cede those rights as the law has now clarified.

I think this comes back to the discussion about what exactly is a 'transperson' though. Surely it would be better for society if we encouraged people to be as non-conforming as they want and embraced that non-conformity?

For any lurkers, Google Mumsnet and third spaces and see just how many times, over many years that it has been suggested, discussed and rejected outright of hand by visiting TRA's as 'othering and transphobic'

(There's a lot, btw)

If trans people want to protest, then HOW do they wish the law to be rewritten in a way that recognises the trauma and distress of women in certain scenarios on an equal basis and level as any trauma and distress they may have?

This is the Equality Act. Not the Trans Rights Act.

Women have Rights Too.

Until trans activists are willing to acknowledge that women have legitimate concern based on trauma then they will not get respect from many women at this junction. Respect is a two way thing.

The problem of the last few years has been totally about a lack of respect for women and deliberate attempt to make their trauma, vulnerability and other equality concerns invisible.

That isn't going to happen anymore.

By all means detail the same for transwomen and transmen but understand that validation as the opposite sex isn't available because it's counter to the lived reality of many others. Steps may be taken to mitigate distress that you can't change sex, but they can not be taken to pretend that you can change sex.

That's where we are at, because that's what material reality and thats the limitations of law making. We can not uphold a fantasy for 'good people' because we have no way of distinguishing them from those who act in bad faith. The law can not be written on the basis of faith and relying that everyone will observe that faith. That's the whole point - the law recognises that most people are law abiding but exists precisely because not everyone is!

Be kind fails because it doesn't recognise the reality of criminals and that law exists because without it there are no criminals! Just anarchy and a survival of the fittest.

This.

It's about gender stereotypes.

Being transgender is about the adoption and enforcement of gender stereotypes by the opposite sex. These then reinforce gender stereotypes on those who are conforming.

It removes the legitimacy to be non conforming and say that gender stereotypes are harmful to all.

A trans woman I know - older, has been 'living as a woman' for about the same amount of time I've been alive - told me that a non-negotiable part of the GRC process was an acceptance that you are not literally changing your sex. I wonder if that has changed - there certainly seems to be a big difference between pre-GRA transsexuals and the more recent increase in terms of acceptance of themselves as trans.

It's "othering and transphobic" because of the mental gymnastics that trans women ARE women. Again if you genuinely believe that line then you can immediately see why it would be considered othering.

Sorry maybe I should be clearer.

Are they protesting for instance that the GRC should be able to overwrite the available EA exceptions like Stonewall and Mermaids told them it did? And they want to get that interpretation of law enacted?

Are they protesting because they believe the general over reaction and that somehow their child doesn't exist in the eyes of the EA?

Or did they just turn up because they felt it was supportive and don't really understand the arguments or want to understand them because of fear of repercussions.

But does anyone genuinely believe that line? Usually there comes a point where it's clear they don't.

I think you also have to remember that many of these parents have been told their child will die if society doesn't affirm their gender. The 'statistics' haven't just been spread by crack pot fringe groups but trusted organisations like the BBC.

I’m sure many people who do bad things feel sincerely about them. But it doesn’t make them less bad.

The religion I was brought up in used to torture people to death because their beliefs did not align with their own sincerely held beliefs. That was centuries ago, but the church was still inflicting emotional abuse on children when I was growing up.

Some people murder others because they sincerely believe they are the devil incarnate. Their belief is untrue, because they are mentally ill.

No one’s sincerely held belief to do with who they are should enable them to inconvenience, harass or abuse other people. Some of the abuse we see from transactivists - such as certain placards on the protests yesterday - is enough to make us think that they are very bad people, or mentally ill.

The journalists interviewing them don't seem to have done any research either. Yet they are quite high profile journalists. It is either lazy or deliberate.

Well, I didn't protest of course so I am just trying to think it through.

I think a lot of parents are protesting because their (adult) children are deeply upset and they don't like seeing that.

The adult children are in many cases deeply upset because the common practice in many settings has been to step ahead of the law and act as if trans people are indistinguishable from natal sex members of the sex they live as. So they have been affirmed over and over that "society agrees I am a woman" , or at least "right thinking" society does.

They are protesting that the rug has been pulled from under their belief system and the house of cards they had built around their life that they were actual genuine women has fallen. Of course that must feel devastating.

I guess in the short term they want the definition of male and female changing; but I don't think that is likely to happen. I guess my hope is medium to long term that the campaign will switch to dignity for all. ATM there is now a gap in that in many places there is no dignified option for a trans person (eg hospital wards, refuges) I am fully aware that that is not GC feminists' fault, but it is where we are.

And that's when it becomes clear that anything other than women completely capitulating is unacceptable to them and why, because women have said 'no, we have rights too', there has been an explosion of threats of violence against women.

And that's what we have been pointing out on this thread.

The protests have shown that nothing other than women's complete capitulation is acceptable or women must be crushed.

This is why the "trans women are women" narrative has been so damaging to both women and trans people.

It has allowed trans people to believe that something that is objectively untrue is true and that anyone who does not believe it is wrong, bigoted and wants to deny them their rights. Of course the dam was always going to burst eventually. It would have been far kinder and gentler to make it clear from the outset that they can express their identity as they wish but that they are not women and that there are limits to the extent to which society will pretend they are out of courtesy.

And it has denied women the ability to describe themselves based on their own material reality.