A THREAD TO RECORD ALL THE APOLOGIES TO GC WOMEN SINCE THE SUPREME COURT RULING

[MarieDeGournay]

Don't all rush at once!🙄

Actually I’m expecting an apology (or something) from work.
I was informed last Monday that someone who used to work there had made a complaint about me. Called me a transphobe for commenting ‘wearing lipstick and a dress does not make you a woman’ on a public Facebook post.
Apparently I’m to face disciplinary action, exactly what has yet to be decided.

I wasn’t confident that my HR department were familiar with the Forstater ruling, apparently a high percentage of HR professionals aren’t. I thought I was going to have to spend quite a long time explaining how my gender critical beliefs are protected by the Equality Act, but now I won’t have to!

Hurrah!

Now the Supreme Court has confirmed that even having a gender recognition certificate doesn't make a man a woman.

Jesus wept. Have you people ever stopped and engaged your brain for so much as 10 seconds before spouting the utter nonsense that spews forth from your mouths?

The court heard from the parties involved in the case. Courts don’t hear from organisations - or private individuals - who aren’t involved in the cases they hear. This is not rocket science.

In this instance, the Scottish Ministers represented the trans side of the debate. They lost.

Where was the outrage when womens’ rights were being given away like candy with no consultation? It’s so hypocritical it’s ridiculous.

I honestly can’t tell what’s satire or irony anymore.
I’m now desensitised to all the bullshit I’ve heard over the last 10 years.

This exactly!

The entire government of Scotland represented trans people in this case 🙄

Someone asked that question on Twitter, and Maya pointed out that no trans organisation applied to be an intervenor.

The option was certainly available to them, but (as we know) their MO is mad, angry crying, which, won’t really cut the mustard in the SC.

I suggest you request information on the complainant so you can make a formal complaint for harassment based on your protected GC views. There’s already tribunal rulings about social media posts which would support you even without the SC ruling. Google might tell you about a London based social worker. You can then say you would be prepared to accept written apologies from both parties so you can draw a line under it and move on….

edite to add - sorry you’re having to put up with this

Total arrogance isn’t it?

Thinking you’re on the right side of history with a whole nation government on your side - why bother making a cogent, fact-based argument when you can try to bluff and bully your way through.

Unfortunately 3 women, funded mostly by small donations from other women had to point out the actual law.

Who exactly is the oppressed group here?

Trans rights activists/advocates were just as able to apply to intervene/submit evidence as Sex Matters, the Lesbian interveners, the EHRC and Amnesty. If you/they didn't then that's on you/them. If you/they did and were refused, that's on you/them for not putting together a credible intervention and I would suggest that you/they get better legal representation next time, because whoever is representing you/them in these cases isn't doing a very good job.

David defeats Goliath.

Goliath (they/them): It wasn't a fair fight! David was way more powerful than me!

Of course they sent me a lot of abusive messages on Facebook and WhatsApp before reporting me to my HR department. (Of course they did!)
I’ve blocked. Much as I’d like to unblock and 🖕I won’t. I do believe that we all still have to make sure that trans identifying people are not discriminated against, bullied or harassed for being trans. We need to be better than the TRAs

Why would they be consulted? They were neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant. It was the Supreme Court, not a party planners.

The SC were interpreting legislation the interpretation that favoured trans being included as women was the basis of the Scottish Government’s submission. The SC determined that argument created incoherence in the operation of the statute so could not have been the legislature’s intention.

Made me laugh..

Entertaining as this diversion is, does Ocado's riff on 'A big boy did it and ran away' count?

There's a separate thread about it:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5317507-ocado-apologies-to-mumsnet?page=1

Women and children are owed a MASSIVE apology by every government since 2010, the NHS, the BBC, the Guardian, the police, the courts, the Department for Education and many more besides.

Women children and trans people are owed a MASSIVE apology from Stonewall and the likes.

Nor were Sex Matters an appellant or respondent, but they were allowed an intervention while Stephen Whittle and Victoria McLoud were denied without any real reasoning from UKSC.

Think you’re on the wrong thread..

I agree.
Will one be requested, I wonder.
I hope so.

Ah is this thread reserved for those with gender critical views?

Ah but the Fox Botherer popped up a day or so ago to tell us all that the lack of trans organisations intervening was because of a) negative press, b) “threats of violence” to staff and c) the risk of it triggering a Charity Commission investigation.

I can only assume the latter translates as “Once people realise what these organisations actually do and stand for, massive safeguarding and compliance red flags start flapping in the breeze, and we’d rather you didn’t know.”

It seems like a significant part of Stonewall and other TRA activists approach is to always center the argument on a single person's experience and then follow up with an appeal to 'be kind' or similar.

Faced with this most people will cave as most want to be perceived as 'nice' - especially when to stand up means to be subjected to an extended tirade of abuse.

The SC decided a point of law - I don't think 'be kind' carries any weight in this decision

Yes 💯. How the hell did every damn public body and institution allow this nonsense to get this far? How did judges and lawyers sit in courts and with a straight face state men were women? How did medical doctors deny biology and science with such conviction?