Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Trans protest- sharing for balance

1000 replies

Tandora · 20/04/2025 11:47

There’s a thread sharing some really awful images from the protest, so I wanted to share some positive ones for the sake of some perspective/ balance.
A lot of people are really understandably incredibly angry and overwhelmed by the events of the last few days. But most people who support trans rights absolutely don’t condone fighting oppression and injustice with misogyny.

Trans protest- sharing for balance
Trans protest- sharing for balance
Trans protest- sharing for balance
Trans protest- sharing for balance
Trans protest- sharing for balance
OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
MrsOvertonsWindow · 20/04/2025 15:45

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

So they were protesting about the SC judgement confirming that:
Lesbians & gay men have the right to associate with other women and men without supervision of heterosexuals?
Nurses and other women being allowed to undress without compulsory viewing from random men?
The crimes of indecent exposure and voyeurism against women being enforced?
That teenage girls undressing for swimming will be allowed to complain if a middle aged man sits watching them in a changing room?
That the crimes of male rapists and paedophiles will be attributed to male crime statistics?

They sound dangerous .

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 20/04/2025 15:46

Tandora · 20/04/2025 15:44

If you have read the full 88 page judgement then good for you. I’ve read parts of it, plus analysis/ commentary. If you believe my interpretations are wrong then you are very free to say so and explain why based on having read the full 88 pages,

If you haven't read all 88 pages then why do you think you are qualified to tell us what it doesn't say?

The thing you are so confidently saying it doesn't say might be on one of the pages you haven't read.

Why don't you go and read it rather than spending your day on here embarrassing yourself with your ignorant opinions?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/04/2025 15:46

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 20/04/2025 15:45

How do you know what it does or doesn't say? You just admitted you haven't read it.

Tandora has read “analysis and commentary” - I imagine from TransActual or Jolyon Maugham or some such nonsense.

VanishingVision · 20/04/2025 15:46

aylis · 20/04/2025 15:39

I wanted to reply to you earlier on your post where you mentioned how we had gone from an occasional workaround to massive overreach and just wanted to mention that the 'workaround' also wasn't consented to by women but was actually a decision made by doctors of their own accord without consultation with women. I add that not as a criticism to you but just as general info - there's a real sense of 'this is how it's always been and women didn't mind' in some quarters when in actual fact women had it imposed on us. This was also the case in some LGBT spaces.

But you're right about the current overreach - sorry I couldn't find your original post to respond to it directly.

Thankyou for your comment! Yes, I'm aware of that but I'm really glad that you've brought it up because realistically: those doctors were male. I think that's really important to highlight.

I suspect over the many years that transsexuals have existed the notion of it has been met with mixed responses from women, depending on the transsexual themselves and I think the 'is how it's always been, most women don't mind' has been used almost as a deflection from the real issue at hand: the slow erosion of women's rights beginning with single sex spaces to where we are today: people trying to argue over the definition of what a woman is.

aylis · 20/04/2025 15:47

Tandora · 20/04/2025 15:44

If you have read the full 88 page judgement then good for you. I’ve read parts of it, plus analysis/ commentary. If you believe my interpretations are wrong then you are very free to say so and explain why based on having read the full 88 pages,

Which is what we've been doing, and you've been insisting we're wrong and that we ought to be changing our minds based on your posts despite you having NOT read it.

Tandora · 20/04/2025 15:47

Tandora · 20/04/2025 15:40

No, the judgement does not say this
Yes agree as per my pp.

It merely enforces that in law, it's biological sex that is key

No it doesn’t say or do this. It says in the EA the word “woman” means biological woman and “sex” means “biological sex”. It’s about interpreting language in the statute, that’s it.

This is what the judgement is about

in the EA the word “woman” means biological woman and “sex” means “biological sex”. It’s about interpreting language in the statute, that’s it.

OP posts:
Notaflippinclue · 20/04/2025 15:47

When is the march to celebrate the SC result - let’s have some fun!

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 20/04/2025 15:47

aylis · 20/04/2025 15:45

I'm sure I'm not the only one with a theory

OP clearly has some skin in the game.

Scentbird · 20/04/2025 15:48

Tandora · 20/04/2025 15:42

Apartheid? Are you fucking serious?

yes . Did you just say that apartheid wasn’t enforced by authorities and the law? Baffled.

No.

Again the comprehension is lacking.

you claim the court ruling isn’t clear. That some women, are interpreting in a way that’s damaging to trans people.

I pointed out then the protest doesn’t make senses unless the protest was simply because they don’t like some women having an opinion they don’t agree with. A small amount of women according to you.

You then compared that to apartheid.

Apartheid is in no way similar to a group of women having an opinion that is not backed by the authorities and the law. Because apartheid was not a small group of women’s opinion and was back by the authorities and the law.

To compare it to apartheid is horrific . But to do so you must acknowledge that women do have the backing of the law. So you know the judgement was clear. Trans women are not women.

FOJN · 20/04/2025 15:48

Tandora · 20/04/2025 15:32

the judgement is being interpreted as banning all trans women from any facilities designated for women and compelling them to use facilities associated with “biological sex” (not defined). This is not my understanding of what the judgement means/ does, but this is how it is already being presented/ used. If this is implemented fascism is an appropriate label.

Edited

Get a grip.

Safeguarding, women's rights and fairness in sport are not hallmarks of fascism.

If it's sugar that's making you more hyperbolic than usually then you should lay off the Easter eggs.

VickyEadieofThigh · 20/04/2025 15:48

MrsOvertonsWindow · 20/04/2025 15:45

So they were protesting about the SC judgement confirming that:
Lesbians & gay men have the right to associate with other women and men without supervision of heterosexuals?
Nurses and other women being allowed to undress without compulsory viewing from random men?
The crimes of indecent exposure and voyeurism against women being enforced?
That teenage girls undressing for swimming will be allowed to complain if a middle aged man sits watching them in a changing room?
That the crimes of male rapists and paedophiles will be attributed to male crime statistics?

They sound dangerous .

This - now WHY would anyone at all protest against these things?

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 20/04/2025 15:48

Tandora · 20/04/2025 15:47

This is what the judgement is about

in the EA the word “woman” means biological woman and “sex” means “biological sex”. It’s about interpreting language in the statute, that’s it.

So the judgment does in fact say that for the purposes of the Equality Act, trans women are not women.

Doesn't it?

PastIsAnotherCountry · 20/04/2025 15:49

Tandora · 20/04/2025 15:44

If you have read the full 88 page judgement then good for you. I’ve read parts of it, plus analysis/ commentary. If you believe my interpretations are wrong then you are very free to say so and explain why based on having read the full 88 pages,

So - you have outsourced your interpretation and reading in the same way you did your self-bruited science explanations.

Just confirming what was woefully apparent.

TheKeatingFive · 20/04/2025 15:49

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 20/04/2025 15:44

Some of them might just be idiots who haven't read or understood the judgment and never met a bandwagon they didn't like.

Or an opportunity to stick it to women

MrsMappFlint · 20/04/2025 15:49

@Tandora One of your pictures shows a sign declaring: 'This Lesbian Says Trans Women Are Women"

I wonder if she will be comfortable sleeping with a lesbian with a cock and balls because many transwomen (aka men) say they are a lesbian and sleep with women not men.

Always assuming of course that it was an actual lesbian holding the sign

Alondra · 20/04/2025 15:50

Minuethippo · 20/04/2025 15:18

Self inflicted? Wtf!! Men can get breast cancer, not only trans women! My God what an uneducated and rotten comment

I apologise to the few handfuls of males developing breast cancer through health issues. I won't apologise for some of you guys getting the vapours for being told breast cancer in males affects 1% of the population, while women are the ones dying in the thousands.

F off and deal with it.

I also find interesting how some of you latch on to my post saying men don't get breast cancer and disregard the rest of that post about the women's' organs (and health issues) that makes us a biological woman - vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries, plus the health problems associated with childbirth.

Some of you are so transparent in the way you try to defend males, it's making smile.

Matronic6 · 20/04/2025 15:51

FOJN · 20/04/2025 15:48

Get a grip.

Safeguarding, women's rights and fairness in sport are not hallmarks of fascism.

If it's sugar that's making you more hyperbolic than usually then you should lay off the Easter eggs.

I get the impression Tandora doesn't understand what fascism means.

Minuethippo · 20/04/2025 15:51

aylis · 20/04/2025 15:04

The metric certainly won't be how they identify internally will it? It will be on verifiable sex, same as for every woman.

do you propose genital inspections for every ‘athletic’ or ‘hairy’ woman? Because that’s the logical endpoint of your ‘verifiable sex’ standard—and it’s grotesque.

Ecocool · 20/04/2025 15:51

Those are not "positive" OP.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 20/04/2025 15:52

PastIsAnotherCountry · 20/04/2025 15:49

So - you have outsourced your interpretation and reading in the same way you did your self-bruited science explanations.

Just confirming what was woefully apparent.

If so many organisations hadn't outsourced their thinking to Stonewall (who were making the fucking law up as they went along) for all these years, we wouldn't be in such a mess today.

literallyarabbit · 20/04/2025 15:52

Tandora · 20/04/2025 15:40

No, the judgement does not say this
Yes agree as per my pp.

It merely enforces that in law, it's biological sex that is key

No it doesn’t say or do this. It says in the EA the word “woman” means biological woman and “sex” means “biological sex”. It’s about interpreting language in the statute, that’s it.

Tandora, by your own admittance, you have no read all the judgement. I have.

You also seem to not understand the difference between sex and gender because this is what the TWAW brigade are up in arms about. They wanted gender to be enshrined in law to mean woman, not sex (AKA biology).

If you understood all this, you would not be posting any of the nonsense you have posted in this thread.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 20/04/2025 15:52

Minuethippo · 20/04/2025 15:51

do you propose genital inspections for every ‘athletic’ or ‘hairy’ woman? Because that’s the logical endpoint of your ‘verifiable sex’ standard—and it’s grotesque.

Don't be so ridiculous.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/04/2025 15:52

Linking the judgment. I can’t copy and paste (if anyone can please do) but the question of what biological sex means is covered in paras 6-8 on p3 (as a pp said). https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf

literallyarabbit · 20/04/2025 15:53

Matronic6 · 20/04/2025 15:51

I get the impression Tandora doesn't understand what fascism means.

Edited

I think it's fair to say there's many many things Tandora does not understand.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.