Disability Rights Uk comes out with statement opposing the Supreme Court ruling

[WeeBisom]

Link to the statement here: https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/disability-rights-uk-opposes-uk-supreme-court-ruling-‘biological-sex’

I'm disabled (having two autoimmune diseases) and I'm frustrated with this statement which has been issued on my behalf. (To be fair, I'm pretty sceptical of Disability rights uk as it adopts a quite postmodernist 'social' concept of disability that says that disability will evaporate if our society is just structured in the right way. Tell that to my immune system which is destroying two of my organs).

"As part of a movement that has always called for ‘nothing about us without us’ – we’re particularly concerned by the court’s exclusion of Trans voices in their decision, and their failure to be led by the lived experience of one of society’s most silenced groups. Decisions about any group’s rights should never be made without the involvement of those most impacted."

The myth that 'trans voices' were excluded from the decision seems to have fully taken root, despite the fact that the trans position was fully argued and represented by the Scottish Government and Amnesty International. I don't see how the 'lived experience' of trans people would have aided the court in interpreting the legislation, which was purely an exercise of law.

"Around half of Trans people are also Disabled. Government policies already place disproportionate barriers on accessing vital healthcare, and now this ruling also erodes their protections against discrimination."

It's a bald faced lie to say that trans people have had protections against discrimination 'eroded'. The court was at great pains to explain that trans people are protected on the basis of sex and on the basis of gender reassignment.

But this bit made me particularly annoyed: "Setting the precedent that it’s okay to weaken the rights of one group, undermines everyone else's rights. Prioritising a bio-essentialist view of gender harms everyone, especially Disabled people. A person’s anatomy, hormone levels, or ability to conceive does not define whether they are a ‘real’ woman. "

And what about women's rights that were actually weakened by fake Stonewall law? The disabled women who faced having intimate care from male caregivers? The poor mentally ill woman who was in a psych ward with a male and who was gaslit into pretending he was a woman? Our rights have been systematically weakened for years by the trans movement: we have lost sporting opportunities, spaces, and even our sexual identity (lesbians being told they have to be open to relationships with males). I honestly think that many people don't really take seriously the idea that women even should have rights - we have little treats, perhaps, that are open to men who want them too and we are being awfully unkind for not being willing to share and putting up a fuss.

So now apparently saying that a woman is a female is a 'bio essentialist' view of gender. Why this is bad is not explained - 'bio essentialist' is just invoked as a bogeyman. And why would a bio essentialist view of gender particularly harm disabled people? It's not said.
But more importantly the Supreme Court wasn't talking about 'gender ' at all - it was talking about sex.

"Trans rights do not come at the expense of Disabled, or anyone else’s rights. In fact, our fight against ableism will never win without an end to transphobia too."

Look, if trans rights means that males who believe they are women get to go into single sex spaces that does come at the expense of women's rights to be in a female only space. It just does. I have no idea why people keep pretending that if transwomen are allowed to do whatever they want this will have no impact on women at all. There's currently a woman in a tribunal fighting for her right to get changed in a female only space - is she not impacted? And what on earth does disability rights really have to do with transphobia?

After this judgment I've just been seeing so much crap put out there that makes me feel like I'm back in 2016. The same old mantras and tropes are coming out to play: there's no conflict at all between trans rights and women's rights, it's transphobic for women to insist on their rights, saying women are female is 'bio essentialist' and harmful. It dismays me that the tension and conflict between trans rights and women's rights is just...not recognised. I would be far more happier if people were just honest and said 'yeah, we know you women have a right to single sex facilities but these rights should be taken away because the needs of trans people are more important" as opposed to this disingenuous bullshit that giving trans people everything they want will not affect any one else in the slightest.

Yes, you’re right.

Thanks for confirming. Much as I wish it weren't true.

This is what I would have expected and not the disrespect they have shown.

The language is insane - the outrage at the law and people who make decisions based on biological / scientific facts.
This reminds me very much of trying to tag women's rights into Far Right politics, as the language of the 1930s Nazis focused on who was a "true" German and who wasn't.
Now turning this around and claiming: "are you saying only XX can be true women"? as if that was a discriminatory statement.

That's what I always am reminded of when they come out with "bio-essentialism".

And "fundamentalism", I have no doubt it will be used, which is very ironic after the "no debate" efforts.

Perhaps it's time to start submitting complaints and 'serious concerns' with the Charity Commission (or equivalent depending on the country where the charity is registered) which covers a charity not fulfilling its charitable purposes, putting its reputation at risk, or breaking the law. I think there's probably going to be quite a few charities falling foul ...

Another fucked off disabled woman herre. I was supported by a charity that has been really helpful with my condition. Unfortunately as a PP stated, all the disability charities are captured now as the T has firmly attached itself in order to further 'prove' how special and marginalised they are.

We have regional leaders who run local support groups. During covid it was all done online and worked really well. Someone with the same disability as me offered to host events in person in 2022 once everything opened up again. Great. Except they are female, but identify as a Trans man, but are in a relationship with a Man who identifies as Female, sonobviously also identify as Queer (no idea why we needed to know all this). The entire support group became all about them and the actual disability support became lost and just all about them. The charity has spent 3 years or so bending over backwards to be inclusive then the person decided they weren't fucking capable didn't want to run the support group anyway.

I'm sick to death of the charities giving them all the special treatment. They just want more anyway. It's so bloody narcissistic. Rather like a few blokes I've known over the years who like to play the victim when they are anything but. DARVO, anyone?

Mind I'm just a middle aged disabled Autistic woman who ran out of patience and fucks with attention seekers a long time ago.

Exactly! Charities have a set purpose in law that they must fulfil. A charity for the welfare of dogs can't start campaigning on behalf of the welfare of cats. And they aren't allowed to be overly political or campaign for the law to be changed. I have no problem with Disability Rights Uk campaigning on behalf of disabled trans people, but this ruling had nothing to do with disability per se, and Disability Rights Uk have utterly failed to include the views of other disabled people who are impacted by this ruling (namely, women who can be sure their care will be provided by women from now on.) The whole thrust of their statement is that you are a bigoted, nasty person if you agree with the Supreme Court.

I shared this earlier for someone who was concerned their email to David Lloyd Gyms would just go to the enquiry inbox and ignored:

CEO email addresses.

Public domain, and gets right to the top of the organisation. Obviously if you put in addresses for Sex Matters, WDI, charity rights commission etc it may even be more likely to be "noticed"

https://www.ceoemail.com/

I have an autistic teen and vaguely follow a couple autism parenting groups online. We are not in UK but in Ireland where our law has self ID and equality rights are based on gender and not sex. They are still getting worked up about this ruling because of course they have trans kids. The hysteria is infuriating. Of course the group admin put up the obligatory be kind message.

While I agree with the sentiment, I know from experience that the Charity Commission expects complainants to use the relevant charity’s own complaints procedure first before coming to the Commission, to give the charity’s trustees the opportunity to put things right themselves. It will only accept direct complaints in very serious exceptional circumstances.

Thanks @AlexandraLeaving.

To clarify, a charity not following the law and/or risking its reputation would be considered to be a serious issue - the wording is slightly different depending on which body the charity is regulated by.

In England and Wales, the process is to complain directly to the charity first (although there may be a reason not to do this) in Scotland and NI, the complaint can be made directly to the appropriate regulator. Some charities are registered in two or all three areas, so separate complaints can be submitted to each regulator.

Are they aware that buying radar keys online to gain access to disabled toilets is a thing? I saw this being discussed in a group and then the comments were swiftly deleted 🙄 But I think people should be made aware that this is a tactic that is being used by TRAs.

I realise gender dysphoria has been removed from the DSM in recent years and isn’t technically or culturally seen as a medical condition anymore (despite it apparently requiring urgent and lifesaving medical intervention..), but if trans people want to redirect their energy into campaigning for more/better disabled toilets and for gender dysphoria to be recognised as a disability/medical condition again, I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing for other disabled people, as it can only result in drawing more attention to the lack of facilities for disabled people.

They need to be considering the fact that gender neutral and mixed sex designs are private. These can be life threatening for those with invisible disabilities such as epilepsy and diabetes etc so they need to campaign for safer toilets with door gaps at the bottom so you can see if someone has collapsed and in need of medical attention.

The only logical conclusion is that single sex designs are best for those with many disabilities. Single sex designs are likely to have door gaps when women are more confident they are only going to be in a facility with other women.