Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
29
lifeturnsonadime · 27/11/2024 22:38

NotAtMyAge · 27/11/2024 21:59

This is where I find Archive.ph so immensely useful. Someone archived that article 2 hours ago.

https://archive.ph/tZvY3

Well it's only going to be an existential threat to 'women' who are male.

Yet again only prepared to view this issue from own perspective.

No matter that 'trans rights' has posed an existential threat to women, eh Robin?

Mmmnotsure · 27/11/2024 22:41

Boiledbeetle · 27/11/2024 22:16

The pigeons are revolting!

Those are, um, quite demanding-looking pigeons, @Boiledbeetle

Melroses · 27/11/2024 22:41

"the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.”

RMW believes the ECHR have ordained this as women's job.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/11/2024 22:42

Obvs.

lifeturnsonadime · 27/11/2024 22:42

Melroses · 27/11/2024 22:41

"the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.”

RMW believes the ECHR have ordained this as women's job.

Which proves that everyone knows who the women are.

BonfireLady · 27/11/2024 22:43

Littlemissgobby · 27/11/2024 15:13

Because a trans woman with a certificate is a subsection of women like say black women or disabled women are so therefore can't be excluded if it's over 25 people. It's up to the court now to decide is that right or wrong

And a transwoman without a certificate is a man?

i.e. is it just the TW with GRCs that could be (or could not be) classified as women in your opinion?

Catiette · 27/11/2024 22:43

Thank you from me to everyone for your commentary, insight, wit and illustrations!

I'm feeling relieved what needed to be said has been said, and seemingly so well (haven't been able to read the tweets or watch much yet) - I'm a little taken aback by how much this had been weighing on me.

Let's hope that one day, hundreds of years from now (I'm too realistic to write decades), a better society will look back on this much as we look back on medieval misogyny - "Can you believe that it was actually seen as appropriate for women to be treated as a legal extension of their husband a court to discuss whether women have a right to be recognised as a demographic with their own name?!"

Am looking forward to more commentary and catching up on the detail by watching excerpts tomorrow.

On an equally important note: I'm team pigeon (ie. that the revolting pigeons upthread are not maligned as disgusting but, rather, are deserving of support in their rebellious fight for recognition and respect - I very much empathise with them in that).

NotAtMyAge · 27/11/2024 22:43

MrsOvertonsWindow · 27/11/2024 22:03

It's a classic isn't it? The cult of me, my wishes, my demands with not a single moment of awareness of the rights of women and girls. So outing 😂

Archetypical Robin, I'm afraid. Utterly incapable of seeing anything from women's point of view. I'd have thought the ability to at least try to see things through other people's eyes would be a useful skill for a barrister, but IANAL.

murasaki · 27/11/2024 22:44

RMW is a gibbering fool whose argument was just as coherent as Crawford's today.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/11/2024 22:50

From what I've seen of the TRAs today, they don't seem to grasp that their position, and the law they bank on, makes no sense logically, in terms of other legal principles, or in any way, really.

JanesLittleGirl · 27/11/2024 22:51

ArabellaScott · 27/11/2024 21:24

Well, seagulls cause similar problems. I love them, too. 😊

I hate shite hawks and I hate flying rats but we can agree on other issues.

RedToothBrush · 27/11/2024 22:52

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/11/2024 22:50

From what I've seen of the TRAs today, they don't seem to grasp that their position, and the law they bank on, makes no sense logically, in terms of other legal principles, or in any way, really.

Maybe it will go that way.

And we find out women and girls have no legal protection.

What happens then? Cos it sure as hell isn't going to fly. It puts labour in a proper shitty situation.

porridgecake · 27/11/2024 22:54

Has anyone else got Menno's voice singing "A woman is a woman and a man is a man" in their heads? I need to go and find a different tune or I won't sleep.

murasaki · 27/11/2024 22:54

JanesLittleGirl · 27/11/2024 22:51

I hate shite hawks and I hate flying rats but we can agree on other issues.

I hate them too, but they identify as kittens it might work for me.

murasaki · 27/11/2024 22:55

Oh wait, it won't.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 27/11/2024 22:55

Maybe it will go that way.

Yes, don't get me wrong, absurdity is baked into the trans legal position and pretty reinforced by now.

RainWithSunnySpells · 27/11/2024 23:08

Thanks everyone for posting what was being said in court today. 👏

ConstructionTime · 27/11/2024 23:14

ConstructionTime · 27/11/2024 17:03

The hearings from yesterday are online on the court's page. Probably tomorrow they'll upload the videos from today.
You can look up the case on the page and then there are the links to the videos.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042.html

I saw someone here asked about Closed Captions for people hard of hearing (or maybe English as a foreign language).

The recorded versions I linked above do have automatic CC.

murasaki · 27/11/2024 23:19

Closed captioning is sometimes dubious at best, and give the word salad they had to work with, I'd be wary of the accuracy. Can't be less clear than Crawford and co though.

Needanewname42 · 27/11/2024 23:21

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/11/2024 22:08

Luckily she's so rich she can afford to bankroll this case AND provide the only single sex rape crisis support in Scotland AND support institutionalised children worldwide AND donate to research on motor neurone disease AND she's still making money faster than she can spend it.

I'm guessing she's saved a bit by no longer donating to the Labour Party though.

She is a star 🌟 woman.

BonfireLady · 27/11/2024 23:24

WomensSports · 27/11/2024 17:14

Having been "surprised" in the bedroom after what I thought was a lesbian date with a woman, and I definitely didn't consent to what happened next, I would actually strongly encourage women to come up with their own way to politely check before clothes come off, no matter how feminine s/he looks.

Women will "get it" (unless they're captured in which case did you want to go there anyway?).

😔💐💪

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 27/11/2024 23:26

I am reasonably hopeful because I think the SC will conclude that Parliament could not have intended legislation that would effectively undermine the protected characteristic of sex whilst apparently granting those protections. ie the definition of woman in the EA must have been intended to make the sex based protections workable otherwise what was the point of creating the protections in the first place.

I think this is an almighty headache for the Labour Party, if FWS win then women will say we told you so and then Labour could only “rectify” the situation by trying to bring forward legislation that explicitly removes women’s rights. If the SG win then we have official recognition that the law as written is a mess that has had the consequence of undermining women’s rights and women will say we told you so.

Either way Labour will be under the spotlight for the harm they are doing to women’s rights.

BonfireLady · 27/11/2024 23:38

RedToothBrush · 27/11/2024 18:25

This goes potentially three ways:

  1. the Supreme court rule in favour of women,
  2. the Supreme court rule in favour of men who say they are women and this blows up in Labour's face as Pandora Box is opened and this is spelt out in all its glory leading to this rumbling on for years, though Labour are likely to do their best attempt at burying it (without much success and giving ENORMOUS political capital to the right) or
  3. the Supreme court rule that this must go back to Parliament. In which case, it blows up in Labour's face with them forced to take on the subject head first and there be a huge public debate on the matter.

Let me make this clear. We have hit a point where there is no winning scenario for TRAs here - not in the long run. The only scenario that works for Labour, is the court ruling in favour of women.

Don't underestimate just how much the political landscape has changed in the last month. It has. Massively.

If it is thrown back to parliament it puts Labour in a position they DO NOT want to be in at this political moment.

It means they will SOLELY be responsible for the legislation that is needed to replace it. They can't look to deflect or shove the blame elsewhere.

They will NOT want such huge focus an attention on the concept of womanhood, because a) if they try to shaft women there will be a whole pile of people who will be on the case who are very much paying attention to the whole subject, for their own political reasons, not necessarily just in this country - theres an orange guy who is going to flog this to death for his own domestic advantage in his own gun touting country and b) if they are seen to shaft transwomen they will get a back lash there with the ranks of their own supporters. Its Lose / Lose for Labour cos they've tried to do their best to avoid the subject but this would force them into a situation where they can't.

It is now a focal point issue that isn't actually just about women's rights.

It will put Labour in an even worse bide for future strategy than the Democrats in the US, because they are the incumbent government and Labour's relationship with the incoming US admistration isn't great. It will be used. The Democrats, can to an extent, regroup and work this out behind closed doors for now but this becoming an issue here, gives political capital to Republicans in the US. Throwing this back to parliament wouldn't allow Labour to hide under a rock about it and would put them on the front line of a Republican/Democrat flash point - they will be effectively a political proxy point for the ongoing US culture war. That is not where you will want your government to be. There's not a chance Elon Musk will keep his gob shut if it goes back to parliament because its a matter of personal emotional investiment and political self interest.

Within Labour it could lead to a significant amount of infighting - not because Labour MPs suddenly have worked out what a woman is, but because they will start to realise JUST how toxic that bill is - especially if they don't get it right. As I say theres a queue forming to try and take out the UK's participation in the ECHR, never mind whats going on in the US.

I note at this point, you also have Wes Streeting who has put himself into a position of acknowledging what a woman is with the Darlington nurses. Thats kinda awkward - it puts him potentially on a direct collision course with Starmer if Starmer intends a terrible fudge throwing women under the bus in the process. This isn't an insignificant flash point. Its been said before that Streeting has political ambitions.

If there's infighting, this could drag the issue out over the course of some time during this parliament. Thus overshadowing a whole pile of other important stuff too. Its your Weapons Grade Dead Cat Event. Its got potential Brexit Levels of Internal Strife written all over this.

The potential fall out also could take them out of government if they are not very careful. Their election victory, is a lot more wafer thin than the number of seats they have, reflects. The numbers just are NOT there for them to cope with a backlash - typically a sitting government rarely is able to match seats at reelection as it is. If thrown back to Parliament and Labour don't win reelection, if Labour screw the pooch, this will be one of those areas that gets looked at rapidly by the next government. Cos over The Pond.

Honestly, this is something Labour won't want to touch with a barge poll if they can help it in anyway. Look whats ALREADY happened to the SNP over this. (And arguably the Greens to a lesser extent. And the LD aren't exactly, all friends over the subject).

Also noting timings on this:
This ruling isn't going to come until 'the Spring'. So thats likely March at the earliest. Then you are into the Easter recess anyway. Usually it takes a while for a bill to be scheduled time in parliament, then read, then passed. This can be done very quickly if urgent but how urgent would this be classified? - especially in view of potential infighting. So the EARLIEST possible time this would land in Parliament's lap, if it goes that way, its liable to be early summer but its probably going to be later than that, and it wouldn't surprise me if it get shunted back to next Autumn as a reasonable guestimation. If they prioritise it. Why is that significant? Well there's a Canadian Election thats going to be held sometime between now and October 2025... Again, this isn't a subject thats going away any time soon. This issue is going to flare up somewhat running into that - cos Trump and Musk will see the Canadian Election as another opportunity... Otherwise this has the potential to rumble on for years, with the public getting more and more fed up with attention on this and not other issues and the sheer abursity of the conversation in the first place.

To summarise: If it doesn't go the way of women, this will turn into a ongoing clusterfuck for Labour because they tried to dodge the subject and kick the can down the road so they didn't have to actually deal with it like they should.

The Dems are going to struggle to dissavow themselves with this and Trump will make changes to make it harder to get back in power.

There are few possible moves left to make here. We've definitely reached something of tipping point, where its all going to start unravelling one way or another imo. Its just a question of how, how far and how quickly.

What's that phrase again 'Wrong side of history'? Sadly if you are the wrong side of material reality, it always eventually catches up with you. You can only sustain a lie, any lie, for so long.

Love it! Great analysis 👏👏👏

BonfireLady · 27/11/2024 23:55

ArabellaScott · 27/11/2024 20:41

Brilliant that the recording is up there to watch for posterity.

The judge with the suddenly buoyant eyebrows is at 1:24 of yesterday's afternoon session, for anyone who missed it.

I said I'd make a gif but I'm a bit wary of copyright, and I can't see how to rip the footage, so an old fashioned court sketch will have to do for now.

(No inferences to be drawn from the purple suit and green chair; I've mislaid my black pencil.)

Great artwork 👏👏

Any chance of a set of Christmas cards with a few other key moments?

Perhaps a confused-looking Ruth Crawford, when she realised she's just said that TW without GRCs are men. I haven't seen the footage yet (I've only read the comments on here) but I'm picturing an iconic facial expression of our times.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread