Trans hate (I don't) and the same old, same old

[RetiringRita]

Well I've been on a few threads this weekend and the one that's been hijacked yet again was the question of trans hate on mumsnet.
The OP asked for opinions on whether that was a fair statement yet within minutes the question was ignored and the same FWR posters were out in force. They didn't want to answer the question so targeted their posts to state their agenda.

Sex as defined by The Surpreme Court ruling
TW perverts in women's prisons
TW perverts in female loos
Men in dresses
FTM having ASD or mental illness.

It appears those of us who sit on the fence are not entitled to be there. Those who cannot be bullied get shouted down.

I have been called the following :

Hand Maiden
Trans Ally
Not part of the sisterhood
Delusional
Captured
Shameful
Mentally ill
A liar (frequently)
A man

None apply to me.

Am I being unreasonable to ask for some understanding and compassion for trans people who don't fit the stereotypes listed?

This^^

The EHRC guidance must comply with the law as confirmed by the Supreme court judgment. It is the law that where services are separated by sex that means biological sex.

We are not talking about your private places- you can exclude all the trans women you want from your property. We are talking about public places and facilities , and that is a matter of public policy. So your opinion is not the only one that counts. Sorry:

I know both news stories. I also know no female has to offer or perform beauty treatments on a male. It's HABIA rules.
When this criminal demanded such action the training provider should have thrown him out. If the girls were under 18 then they were in breach of the law on intimate services.

I think there's a lack of compassion on BOTH sides. They're not truly listening to each other. Toxic and counterproductive on both sides.

Most female prisons are full of shoplifters and drug mules although I have sat in front of baby P's mother.

I've seen Rose West and met other female murderers. I still wouldn't want any of them to be exposed to male rapists. The vast majority of women in prison have suffered sexual abuse.

No rapists but there are paedophiles.
We also still lock up prostitutes if they are running brothels.

Again, that's not a reason why these women should be housed with convicted male rapists.
"Prostitutes" are generally called sex workers BTW.

it’s not what the SC judgement said though. It’s an interpretation which goes beyond what they actually said Which has not been tested in law:

Why would it be ridiculous?

There's a very long list of things men have pretended to be to access victims - police, doctors, priests, teachers, your Mum's friend who is picking you up from school etc. anything to make them look trustworthy. One man even pretended to be Sir Keir Starmer to dupe women.

Men have also faked injury, pretended to be lost, pretended to be broken down at the side of road. The list of things men have pretended to be in the scope of human history to harm others is very broad and very long.

We might not be talking about a huge amount of men but to act like it just wouldn't be a thing is disingenuous and goes against everything we've learned about the capacity for deception some men have.

Frequent use of “cis” is making me sick.
There is no need to add a descriptor to the word woman or women, there just isn’t.

We are women. Men are men.

What do you think that this thread is going to convince your MP and those reading along of?

Where is this 'trans hate' that you refer to? Apart from the posters who have actually defined being 'transgender' as per their personal definition and not actually that of all people with a transgender identity?

You haven't bothered to engage and clarify what you even mean.

But he's not a male he's a transwomen. Wouldn't it be horribly transphobic to not treat a transwomen because you think she's a man.

It is though.

If you want to use single sex exemptions they must be on the basis of biological sex.

It's an exempt profession and you need a different licence and a visit from vice.

Can you provide the Act and section which the training provider should have followed?

Nope that’s an interpretation / extention of what they said. They don’t actually say that at all.

Well I read the entire 40 pages of the first thread knowing what would be there but I’m buggered if I’m reading the next 20 of the same old shite.

But I quite like the idea of letting this run, good to get the dirty laundry out in the open and such, and Im sure whatever everyone’s going on about my post will just give you some fun new points to froth at

so yeah I’m fine with trans women being included as women but I only post when I can be bothered to be very sad and very angry because the stuff on here is so gross. I’ve been followed around mumsnet and had the usual ‘we see you’ ‘you’re a man’ ‘you’re not real’ ‘you’re a troll’. Been asked to ‘prove it a hundred times more than in the good old days when the worst thing on the internet was the neckbeards. Turns out women are better at everything and that includes internet bullying!

the thing that kills me about it all is that it all seems to hinge on women being the eternal victim. We must have our safe spaces, our toilets, our modesty, be protected from the bad bad men. That to me is such a black mirror of what feminism is, and what I want from the future.

and yeah dgaf about sports either, I’m sure someone smart can figure that incredibly important issue out

I haven't bothered to engage with you. No law against that.

So are you saying that we only have to accept that transwomen are transwomen and not men up to the point in time that they commit a crime and it's only then that we are allowed to correctly identify them as men.

Transwomen are transwomen unless they make trans people look bad at which point they become men.

The whole point of the case was whether the single sex exemptions applied only on the basis of biological sex or if they also included people with a GRC in the opposite sex.

The judges ruled in favour of FWS in confirming that sex in the EA means biological sex

I have said very clearly I support two sexes.
You know this.
I have never told any women to accept TW.
I've merely questioned the behaviour of some against a small number of humans.

Would you be able to articulate what you think the solution for protecting female single sex provisions should be then?

And can you also then tell us how you think getting to that solution should be done, that has not already been tried?

For your post to be credible, I think you should give some insight into how you think what feminists and women's rights campaigners should have done, and what they should be doing. Otherwise, you are standing on the side lines censuring feminists and women's rights campaigners by making statements about something that is completely without symmetry.

One group is stating facts, the other group is declaring on signs that the other group should be decapitated, raped and should die. I can tell you from personal experience, it is not women's rights campaigners or feminists who are doing anything like wishing ill on people with transgender identities.

So you agree with women who've been campaigning for women's rights and are grateful to them for confirming womens rights in the Equality Act but still want to call them hateful

Perfectly put

No. None at all. Why would you mention there being a 'law against' it?

I am merely pointing out your lack of engagement and that you seem to think that this thread is showing 'hate' towards people with transgender identities. I think it has become rather clear that what it has shown is your own prejudice against a group of women you have some small disagreement with.

Go onto the HABIA site and look up the rules on intimate services otherwise I will it later.
Tbh the girls could bring a claim.