Women's rights general conversations - Thread 10

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 9.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions in the supermarket, grr"- that sort of thing).

Placemarking!

Thank you!

Thank you

Thanks.

Still quiet in this one while we fill the other one up - just bumping to make sure it doesn't disappear to the bottom of the page!

This woman having a great rant, love it:

https://x.com/ReturnofColin2/status/1910808593244238150

£75 to meet Sturgeon!? If Sandie Peggie want to have a chat with her I'd be willing to bung a few pennies her way 😄

I see Willyboy is calling fix on yesterday's ruling on the grounds that JKR and one of the judges live in the same bit of Edinburgh (they don't).

If I were to choose someone to libel, a supreme court judge wouldn't be my first pick.

Even if they did, does Willoughby quite grasp how many houses are in that area? It's not some remote enclave or millionaire's row - it's a busy suburb of Edinburgh!

Christ, he's thick as mince.

Kathleen Stock in Unherd

https://unherd.com/2025/04/how-women-won-the-gender-wars/

Well worth a read.

She is brave and coherent.

“transubstantiation by means of lip gloss” Brilliant.

Love it! 😂

Something in the Grauniad that I agree with and isn't all about the special menz!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/17/clarity-uk-supreme-court-rights-of-women-campaigners

Despite their borrowings from intellectual postmodernism, gender identity activists (including such luminaries as Judith Butler) take a binary view of our complicated world in which anyone who doesn’t line up with them must be on Team Trump

She makes a point here I don't think I've come across as much as it should. That the "sex is a complimacated performativitic constellationary supercalifragilisitic nebulous dogwhistly rainbowistic fuzzy blurry spectrum which nobody with a legitimate competent Intellect can possibly comprehend" crowd are remarkably black-and-white "everybody who disagrees with my Righteousness is Hitler" binary about everything else that even touches upon the Omnicause.

Obviously there’s lots more press coverage today but I wanted to put this link to The Times letters page somewhere. The first letter is from Jo Phoenix, and you’ll enjoy Kathleen Stock’s too.

I thought you would be interested in this story from The Times:
Court ruling on the definition of a woman.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d95b5074-bbaf-4c0f-98f2-ba6e2758b599?shareToken=b4b02df2004e6de5a15c803bab24b517

I thought I'd have a look at letters to the Guardian on this subject. Surprise! They don't seem to have published any.

I went over to the other place to see how they reacted to the ruling - much sense, but it was a bit sad to see people who used to seem intelligent going full ostrich. It's probably what Helen Joyce said.

However, on the general feminism thread tenesmus posted the link to this
https://x.com/DrVivianS/status/1912537035610505330

what the actual?

Someone on MN posted something about a similar incident recently. It's horrific.

For people who don't use X, it's an account of a Marriot hotel giving the key of a woman's room (she was sleeping in it) to a random strange man who pretended he was her husband. And Marriot's unsatisfactory response.

The BBC is launching a public consultation on what people want from it - more coverage of womens rights perhaps? www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2025/our-bbc-our-future-audience-questionnaire

I went over to the other place to see how they reacted to the ruling - much sense, but it was a bit sad to see people who used to seem intelligent going full ostrich.

Urgh. I can only imagine.

I know there's plenty of good people there still, but I don't want to go back. That was then.

I'm just at the combined

"Nothing to see here, nothing has changed, silly wims making a fuss for no reason"
and
"ZOMG it's the end of civilisation and the fascists are marching on our faces"
sometimes from the same posters on different threads.

But they did publish this

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/17/trans-activists-accuse-uk-equalities-chief-overreach-suggesting-bans

which ends with a great quote from Susan Smith, a co-founder of For Women Scotland.

Summing up in that article: "“If people could have been a little bit more sensible, this wouldn’t have happened.”
Well, quite.

Smith said the overreach had come from trans groups and public services that wrongly interpreted the law, including in the previous statutory guidance issued by the commission.

quite so.
Trans people’s rights haven’t been rolled back. What happened is that transactivists and bad men happy to exploit ‘stonewall law’ illegally steamrollered over women’s rights. They went too far and now they’ve gone over a cliff.