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?

It indicates I thought they were men before transitioning

Oh and the suggestion that women, who have just spent years fighting back against the attempted removal of their rights by a group of selfish men are exhibiting “I’m alright jack” attitudes is deeply insulting @Micaela64

We’re not alright at all, we’re reeling from the effort it has taken and the knowledge that, even having come so far, we are STILL going to have to continue to fight over and over to claw back our rights from those selfish men.

So if you are one of those selfish men, you can fuck right off.

I know that sex and gender are not the same thing.

Sex is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act, which is the topic under discussion.

Gender isn't.

In the Equality Act, a man is defined as a male person, which makes trans women men.

Language evolves, and society evolved, but we will always need words for male and female people which are defined according to objective, sex based criteria, not according to people's subjective identities. Do you understand this?

You are the ones misrepresenting it. Making out the 80s was all fun and games for LGBTQ+ people just because Boy George was on TOTP.

What do you think a man is, and what do you think transitioning to a woman involves?

<Adds Badenoch to chorus line>

There ought to be a public enquiry into how this was allowed to happen.

Just thinking about that poor woman raped on an NHS ward, amongst all the other shit that they caused.

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

I guess from my perspective, I already felt secure and confident in my understanding of being female, and so don’t personally require the court’s input, clarification or definition.

I understand and believe that females are those born as such, you can’t argue with biology, but don’t buy into a reductive definition that we’re just wombs and boobs.

For me it’s like saying that dogs are canines, but believing they all have to be Alsatians.

Somebody being born a man. Transitioning = gender reassignment surgery and living life as a woman

Your made up acronym didn’t even exist then. Your ignorance and deliberate misframing is conspicuous.

Yikes.

So we're no clearer about what you think a man is or indeed what living as a woman means, but apparently you think the approximately 90% of trans women who have not had gender reassignment surgery are still men.

The acronym didn't exist, but the people and the communities did

See also the phenomenon of the irregular ability of comprehension.

See also the sense of entitlement and inability to empathise with or conceive that women have a different perspective.

Neither MN, nor FWR are a becardiganed monolith.

IKR? How horrifically transphobic!

what do you think ‘living life as a woman’ mean?

Well, there was this, in response to the comment "99% of sex offenders are male":

And how many of those men do you think are cis as opposed to trans?

which is you calling them men after they've transitioned. I mean, make your mind up.

The thing is that most of us here started out in the "be kind" space and understand the motives behind it. Many if not most of us know one or more lovely trans people who we care about and would like society to help them live better lives.

But I'm afraid those people have had their position thoroughly undermined by trans activism and its determination to cover for bad actors.

If Jack wants to be called Jane, I don't care in principle, and I'm perfectly prepared to be polite. If Jack wants to enter the girls' swimming competition, cheat his way to the girls' medals, and walk around the girls' changing room with his cock out, then I'm afraid I'm not going to respect his preferred pronouns.

What this judgment says is: the protected characteristic of sex refers to sex. It doesn't refer to some nebulous concept of gender identity that nobody can define. Trans people have the PC of gender reassignment, they have the PC of sex (according to their biological sex) and they may have other PCs. This should be perfectly workable for trans people who aren't actively taking the piss.

Public inquiries achieve little.

I have a jaundiced view because of the lack of impact of all the ones around the NHS.

I mean a million times this.

Framing women's rights to equality as a right wing belief means that the left doesn't believe in equality for women, no?

I see the judgement hasn’t impacted on the usual pigeon chess we have to endure on these boards.

That's called a typo which was edited after

You could be a woman with MRKH syndrome (born without a uterus) who has had a double mastectomy due to breast cancer, and be raped by a man.

In that situation you may want to access female only support services to help you work through your trauma.

The impact of the Supreme Court judgment is that rape crisis services should not gaslight you by claiming to provide a female only service, only for you to find that there is a trans woman in your support group, or actually running the service. (These are not made up scenarios, they are real and both the subject of litigation.)

You may also be hospitalised and placed on a female only ward, or request a female doctor or nurse to provide any intimate care you might need.

The Supreme Court judgment confirms that there should be no trans women on your female only ward (if you are on a mixed sex ward it should be clearly stated to be so and appropriate safeguarding measures should be in place) and that you are entitled to object to a trans woman doctor or nurse providing your care on the grounds that this does not meet the definition of the same sex care you have requested.

Unfortunately some of us also know men with trans identity choices who are very much not lovely, and have direct experience of how very alarming they can be.

It's considered quite transphobic to insist that only people with gender dysphoria are trans.

There is a common misconception that all trans people experience gender dysphoria. Some people go further and promote the false belief that gender dysphoria is intrinsic to being transgender, a perspective sometimes referred to as “transmedicalism”.

https://www.gendergp.com/not-all-trans-people-experience-gender-dysphoria/

Again, defining who belongs to which group for protection under the law does not reduce any member of that group to anything.

“For me it’s like saying that dogs are canines, but believing they all have to be Alsatians.”

How can it be the same? The word canine does not imply Alsatian in any way.

Or are you suggesting that it’s perfectly possible to be a male woman and that because you feel so sure of your womanhood, it’s no threat to your rights if those male people are included?