Reframe your disappointment

[MissScarletInTheBallroom]

Inspired by a couple of other threads about the reaction to the Supreme Court judgment from trans allies, I thought it might be interesting to have a thread to discuss what to say to people if it comes up in conversation.

Comments I've seen so far seem to suggest:

• the judgment was legally wrong and this isn't the end
• the judgment might have been legally correct but it was morally wrong and the law needs to be changed
• trans rights are now being rolled back
• this is a victory for the far right
• this was orchestrated and bank rolled by the far right
• this decision will now embolden transphobes to harass and victimise trans people

Perhaps we could brainstorm the best ways to respond to these (and any other) talking points, should they arise?

The Scottish Government is a trans organisation isn’t it?

Underrated comment - I salute you!

That poster is performing the irregular verb theory in real time.

I am a powerful ally defending the most vulnerable.
You are bigots and fascists because I have decreed it.
They/he/she/ze/xir [insert preferred hyperbole]

The ruling doesn’t say that women are ‘just the sum of their body parts’. This sort of misapprehension comes from mistaking definitions and observations with judgements and prejudices

Nope. It’s more rewriting of history, but we should never let the truth get in the way of a comparative victimhood complex in full flow.

Oh do fuck off dear!! I mean seriously how bloody dare you have the front to come in here and lecture lesbians who were there in the 80s about how it was. You’ve made the fundamentally misogynistic mistake of assuming everyone on mumsnet is straight

and if only it were a tiny number but the reality is most TW are straight men who want to fuck women

Please call this convicted rapist by his name…Adam Graham

OK, but seriously, this is a great response to the "no trans people were consulted" line.

The party advocating for women was For Women Scotland, a grassroots campaign group, set up in 2018 and run by three women. They were supported by Sex Matters and the LGB Alliance, which are both small and recently formed charities.

The party advocating for trans people was the Scottish Government, supported by Amnesty International.

So in what sense were trans people underrepresented? This was a victory for David over Goliath.

As someone who works in the arts I am surrounded by people who find this ruling disappointing but I am going with the practical points such as it’s now clear we need M F and ‘All gender’ loos and isn’t it great that now it’s clear and unambiguous and we are not on the front line of any disagreement. We can keep all our customers happy.

It did need saying because transactivist groups were stating that the word woman included some men and were being to claim some men were female as well.

Defining who we are in law does not make us “just the sum of [our] body parts” any more than knowing that the word dog means a canine animal with four legs and a tail in law means that my furry friend is reduced to his body parts.

This is a non-argument. To know who belongs in the group women, we need a definition. That is all and knowing that definition only describes which group you are in. It does not diminish you in any way.

Is the problem that my lady voice is too high pitched and not authoritative enough for you to hear?

there’s no need to talk about rapists or girl dick. The answer from women is no, men are not welcome in spaces where women are partially dressed or vulnerable. And for decent men that’s enough. Read the room sonny and sling your hook

If you work in that kind of environment then I think this is exactly the right approach.

"It's good that the confusion over what the law says has now been cleared up. We need to ensure that men, women and trans people are equally but separately provided for. What steps does our organisation now need to take to make that happen?"

Factual, unemotional, constructive.

Typical of the 'no debate' crowd - if you don't agree 'you're all right wing bigots'. Typical of the misogyny that underpins this ideology. You can't change sex, surgery or dress doesn't change your sex. We need to protect women, and children from this awful ideology based on sexist stereotypes. I'm against castrating boys, and sterilising girls. No men in women's prisons, rape crisis centres, sport or changing rooms. No men taking women's scholarships or women's prizes in business and education. Transwomen should use Men's changing rooms - its up to men to make them feel comfortable in the right spaces.

Why are you resorting to extremes? It's not just about rape. For a lot of women it's about the mere presence of the male body and what it represents.

The purpose of safeguarding is to ensure that the risks posed by the tiny minority of risky people (in this instance people with penises) are minimised as far as possible.

Whilst you're here what would you advise religious women to do when faced with a biological male in a state of undress? Their religious beliefs would not allow them to change in front of a male or to view a male. Is it ok for their beliefs, principles and needs to be trampled on? Is it ok that they should have to exclude themselves for the benefit of someone else?

Only a complete and utter numpty could suggest that there is anything "right wing" about a group of feminists going to the Supreme Court to ensure that the equal rights legislation passed by the last Labour government is properly upheld.

Are you for real? Why would anyone who knows about lesbian and gay history use the meaningless and anachronistic acronym 'LGBTQ+'?

At least in the 80s it was possible to be a lesbian, i.e. a woman attracted to other women, and organise and meet and socialise together, and we didn't need a UK Supreme Court judgment to say we were not being 'transphobic' for so doing.

Yes, I was going to say the same about Amnesty. They have a post on Facebook from 2 days ago: "BREAKING: Today's Supreme Court judgment is disappointing. Make no mistake, legal gender recognition is a human right.
We all have the right to live free from discrimination and fear. Trans rights are human rights"

Some comments agreed, but a good number disagreed, like this one:

"Today was a brilliant day for women in this country silly lefty male lawyer has no clue what he's on about "

The Communist Party of GB are left wing and have no time for the TWAW argument. So no, this is not a left/right issue unless you think leftwing=people who agree with me because I am a nice person.

Me too. Love this.

I think that's exactly how they see it.

Not serious people.

That's weird. The law is the same as it was on the 8th April 2010 when it became law under the previous Labour Government.

Weirdly I don't believe anyone regards the last Labour government as far right as far as I know.

'Now transwomen won't be protected'

'How do you protect somebody if they want us to pretend they don't exist?'.

The 1980s was all about the New Romantics - men who wore make up and androgynous clothing, but who did not think it was their right to use women's loos or hijack women's sport.

That is how most people on the left see most issues of what they consider “social justice”. They don’t actually consider each issue on its own merits and the moral position they’re taking. They just want to buy a badge and get lots of pats on the back for being so superior.

Leftists have lost the plot. Calling yourself left-wing doesn't make you right about everything.

"Have you read the judgment? Because it makes it very clear that trans women still have exactly the same legal protection today that they had yesterday. They also have their own protected characteristic in the Equality Act, that of gender reassignment. In what way do you think they will not be protected?"