Aren’t the front pages and headlines glorious!

[SameyMcNameChange]

I know there is a fair amount of bandwagon jumping, but it feels like the newspapers have finally read the room and realised that the SC ruling is welcomed by FAR more people than it disappoints. And so the front pages have smiling faces and headlines that would never have been published before.

Even, for example, the Metro which has had a pretty shocking record before has a pretty clear headline and a picture of smiling women.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd3jg60q4no

Just a reminder that we have a man on this thread who is using women’s spaces

he’s a man who has had a tough time and is deserving of sympathy. However his presence in women’s spaces renders them unusable for some women and impacts the privacy, dignity and safety of all women. I may be doing him a disservice, but judging by the tone of his previous posts I’d be surprised if he is going to voluntarily change his behaviour.

and this is the crux of the matter. Is the comfort of this man and other men like him the most important thing, or is it the privacy, dignity and safety of women?

I think it’s possible to comfort and say no. That’s where I’m at if people are respectful. Just like teaching the kids. They hear no. They are upset. Then we move on. Some will accept the SC and there will be some who don’t. Trampling all over all of us and they’ll unfortunately be on the wrong end of the law. Like Dr Upton they’ll end up named as respondents for creating hostile work environments for women and face financial & reputational consequences. In the end don’t we all just learn from the consequences. They’ve been slow to come but come they will. It’s going to be painful and public just like all the women who were put through it over the last few years. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy but they will do it to themselves. Sad

I think many of these men won’t accept ‘no’. Back in about 2016 I kept thinking that if I explained it well enough these men would understand the impact they were having on women and stop. It took a while for me to understand that most just don’t see women as real enough to care about and some actually relished frightening women and taking things from them.

it’s hard to say ‘no’ to people like that. Much easier to say ‘no’ to ordinary women who are in general reasonable. But the SC has made it clear that the hard ‘no’s’ have to be said now

It’s a harsh realisation, isn’t it @BernardBlacksMolluscs

was only after the female staff were consulted by my manager and I was given the go ahead to use them did I start using them

Well now you know. If those toilets state Women or Female then legally you are not allowed in them. I also suspect the female staff were bullied and coerced to say yes. I assume you will stop using female single sex spaces now?
@OneGreatReader

Yep. I've had to unfollow a rather lovely gay chap on Facebook who I've known for years. He's been understandably championing gay rights for decades, but of course now he's all for Trans rights.

He's posted a lengthy diatribe detailing how upset he is at the SC ruling which is peppered with "I know some women feel there's a risk, but that's not my reality" He's literally said it about five times in his 'speech'.

All I see and hear from this regurgitated bullshit is:

But, but ME
But, but MEN
We really don't give a shit about women
I'm not a woman so I don't understand and don't want to

It's like like equivalent of 'I'm sorry you feel like that' in place of an apology or any real understanding or taking of any responsibility (in other words Fuck You and I'm not sorry at all)

Male entitlement really knows no bounds

And the absolute one thing I'd take from my five decades as a woman is that yes, Men really don't like being told No.

I think that’s a good point.
Was this agreed by all unanimously and freely?
Or was it presented as a done-deal with threats of disciplinary?
Or soft power of being excluded by colleagues and labelled a bigot?
How many of the group were genuinely free to choose?

And in fact, was every subsequent new female employee asked their consent or were they told 'this is what happens, it's been decided already'

The toilets are private not public so I believe the owner sets the policy.

Workplace toilets?

No. There is very specific requirements regarding workplace toilets.

https://sex-matters.org/questions-and-answers/what-are-the-legal-requirements-for-single-sex-toilets-at-work/

Thank you for the clarification. I was going to speak to my manager tomorrow about this issue so this has clarified things for me.

Unfortunately if it’s a workplace the employer will need to offer a single sex option unless it’s a self contained lockable room.

It's rare for someone to come back and apologise. I'm sorry for what you've been through. I'm not religious or generally vindictive but I dearly wish for a hell in which people who died unpunished for their crimes are burning.

@OneGreatReader if you don't like politics, avoid the news, aren't familiar with 'Rose' and the other cases that form the background, and don't know what the related legislation says, how can you possibly understand the need for this ruling, why the case was brought, or what it means - both legally and emotionally to women?

My belief is that everything is One. This One is the same as our True Self. If we cause suffering to others therefore we are actually causing suffering to ourself. Although we may be able to convince ourselves during our lifetime that there are no consequences for causing suffering to others , in death, the illusion shatters and all the suffering that we have caused to others is revisited upon ourself.That is enough of a hell for me to imagine such people going to.

Anyway, headlines: The Times SNP criticised for ‘snubbing feminists’ after Supreme Court ruling

https://archive.ph/Mo7Kf

Also notable for the contrasting claims of the 2 placards in the photo.

Two more articles in Times Scotland:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/04398465-faa9-42a2-bf25-3e5c9e338827?shareToken=e492312defdcd2415ca9f4047c8f4827

And a comment bi Iain Macwhirter:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/3d7e2776-d353-40fa-a970-b60b027c2a2e?shareToken=a152036d2dda7cdc696bf7ca98307df8

A good one that actually explains all this clearly including the issues for women

https://www.thetimes.com/world/ireland-world/article/uk-ruling-affirms-womens-rights-it-is-not-a-blow-to-trans-rights-zv2mf5znc

https://archive.ph/cSP55

Interesting legal article from the Times:

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/register/article/the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-trans-women-in-detail-87kjbxp3j

Archive link for the above Times article

https://archive.ph/bYvvV

I wish the folx demonstrating would, if they/them can't be arsed reading the judgement itself, at least read an article like this.

Thank you wims for the links and shares, much obliged.

I have now read the Times explanation of the ruling in detail. This provides the background to the case making it more intelligible and easier to empathise with your position both legally and emotionally.

However, even in light of the explanation given in the Times, the ruling still does not seem to carry with it the unambiguous implication that a post-op transgender woman is not a biological woman.

I can post a brief outline of the argument if anyone is interested.

I should have written " the argument described" instead of " the ruling" does not seem to carry with it the unambiguous implication that a post- op transgender woman is not a biological woman.

However, even in light of the explanation given in the Times, the ruling still does not seem to carry with it the unambiguous implication that a post-op transgender woman is not a biological woman.
Surgery does not turn a man into a woman.
It's funny how we get accused of being reductionist when we insist on a biological definition of woman but it seems chopping a man's dick off makes a man a woman, reducing man to a penis.