Help me to verbalise my feelings on the trans movement/new law

[miniegghead]

I am very liberal and usually maintain a live and let live attitude. I don’t care how people choose to identify or live their lives. Gay, straight, trans, race, whatever - as long as you’re a decent person crack on.

However the whole issue with the trans thing is how they have slowly tried to infiltrate women’s spaces and rights. Live how you want to live but don’t try to change society for the majority. It began to feel like the wants and feelings of one trans woman trumped the comfort and safety of a bunch of women and I didn’t like that. So for that reason I support the new laws.

What I don’t understand, and I admit I’m not clued up on the language or in depth debates surrounding this, is why other people are no against this? People I know and have agreed with before entirely on political issues and whatnot are up in arms. They loathe JK Rowling, they think it’s disgraceful. Why are people so angry about trying to maintain single sex spaces? I have one particular friend who is really wound up about it and I know it’s going to come up in conversation. I feel ill equipped to put my point across succinctly because I just can’t understand the outrage at declaring women deserve privacy and respect.

Can anyone explain a little about the opposing view?

How anyone can argue against JKR views is staggering.

But I fear the ruling this week will end up changing little.

But as mentioned above, many trans-identifying men do not want third spaces, they want to be able to use women’s spaces, and preferably with women in them, because (at the mild end) if they use a woman’s toilet and the women don’t throw them out, this validates for them that they are real
women. At the extreme end they do it because they have a fetish and they get sexually aroused by breaking women’s boundaries.

And good luck telling which one is which.

It will change little, but little steps add up.

The NhS and BBC won't care as they will just pay fines given from the public's money but other companies will care when the lawsuits comes in.

I used to spend a lot of time trying to understand trans activist arguments. Then I came across one of the most helpful posts I've read on this board (and there have been many) which basically said that their arguments are emotional, not rational and that reason and logic and facts are therefore never going to work.

I now stick mostly to something along the lines of 'you can believe that if you want but you have no right to force your beliefs on other people'.

And yes, it's not a new law. I know you're probably sick of posters telling you this but it's a really important point - the law has been misinterpreted for many years.

“In the time spent arguing about whether trans women deserve dignity, we could have made real progress fighting male violence, funding women’s services, and strengthening rights.”

I also think this has been a massive distraction. Women absolutely didn’t want to spend all their time on this.

Unfortunately, it has been very necessary, as the very definition of the word woman has been obfuscated and deliberately confused by Trans Rights Activists, in order to further their cause.

And it has set women’s rights back by years.

How can we go about fighting for women’s rights if we aren’t even allowed to describe women???

This is particularly relevant when it comes to male violence against women, which is partly why single sex spaces exist in the first place!

I agree. It's the JKR post and Cass report all over again. People not even reading it but feeling qualified to spout their incorrect opinions all over the place.

And as why people are so angry, I suppose it's because they've been sold a lie by Stonewall and other lobbying groups that self id was the law of the land and it's not. The GRR Bill in Scotland failed but essentially self id had been introduced into various institutions 'before the law' - the Scottish Prison Service who still place violent male offenders in the female prison estate (even after Isla Bryson), NHS Fife who suspended a nurse for not wanting to get changed in front of a male colleague and are currently going through a humiliating court case, rape crisis services across Scotland who don't provide single sex rape crisis groups because the funding from the SG is dependant on them not.

The ones who are angry have been lied to. But instead of getting angry at the lobbying groups who lied to them, they're getting angry at the women who, as it turned out, were right all the time.

Edited by MNHQ to remove the petition link.
OP, I'm guessing you've got the message by now that it's not a new law 😄

The "opposing view" is that the Supreme Court has put its foot down about overreach and lots of people don't like being told "no". Toys are flying out of prams up and down the country.

These two documents set out the background to the case in a clear way

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

ETA: the petition link sets out the case in a clear way. It wasn't to drum up support for the petition because that's not needed any more! 😄
Anyway OP you can find the link on the FWS website.

And for anyone doubting the 'before the law' aspect, this is a quote from James Morton, then the Head of the lobbying group Scottish Trans Alliance whose advised the SPS on policy -

‘We strategized – we strategized – that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise’.

What @TwoLoonsAndASprout said bears repeating many times:

"They think they are being deprived of something they thought they could do, by some new ruling. They don’t understand that they shouldn’t have been allowed to do it in the first place."

In terms of conversations with your friend,OP, the following approach has worked well for me…….

I suggest we work out our areas of agreement and at what point we diverge. I start with whether we agree that sex is binary and can be determined at birth. In my experience, most people (outside of social media) agree on this. Where they don’t, I ask if they agree that approximately 0.06% of people have chromosomes that are neither XX or XY, and less than 0.018% of people have a DSD that isn’t straightforwardly a male or female DSD. If this still proves tricky, I suggest we park the ‘sex is binary’ disagreement and agree to focus on the 99.9%+ of people without a DSD. If they refuse, there is really no point in continuing the discussion. If people believe sex isn’t binary, and it’s too complicated to distinguish, there is no basis for having any single sex provision and no conversation to be had. You could argue that this view means the law would prohibit single gender facilities/provision as there isn’t a legitimate aim for segregating by gender/identity.

Where we have agreement that there are 2sexes, I then explore whether we agree that, for equality purposes, provision for single sex spaces/services should be permissible in some circumstances. I use the example of hospital wards, prisons and changing rooms. As we are actively looking for points of agreement, I suggest we steer clear of less ‘clear cut’ facilities. Again, it is unusual to find people IRL disagreeing with the principle for the right for such provision to exist. Disagreement usually comes at the point of who should access it. If they jump to this point, I remind them that we are looking to identify the point at which our views diverge, and return to exploring the ‘right’ to segregate by sex. In my experience, it’s 50:50 as to obtaining agreement at this point. For those who agree, we then move on to whether exceptions (e.g some males) should be included in the ‘female’ only provision. I find that even where there is disagreement, the shared foundations up until this point leads to less frothing about bigoted views and more respectful disagreement. For those who disagree, it’s usually because they start back tracking to what was agreed about sex being binary and that you shouldn’t ignore the 0.018% when considering policy. At this point, I highlight that we do agree about sex, but disagree whether it’s reasonable to design policy for 99.9% of society, ensuring that that the 0.06% are also catered for. They then tend to suggest that the number of trans people is far higher than the number of people with DSDs. I then highlight that we do agree in sex being binary, but are disagreeing as to whether it a suitable classification to determine access to provision. It is unusual for TRAs to stick with the discussion at this point as they tend to get flustered and deal with this by telling themselves that I don’t understand and am ignorant about my bigoted thinking. I suggest we switch to thinking about the legitimate/proportionate rationale for provision in line with identity rather than sex, but to date, no one has taken this up.

This is a long post, but it highlights how I have had some success in moving people from dismissing my thoughts as bigoted to accepting they aren’t bigoted- even if they don’t agree.

Another tip is to talk personally rather than trying to defend others (e.g. JKR). I state that I agree with her views, and focus on my views/thoughts. It is much easier to defend what you think and have said than what others have. Also, stops the substantive points/discussion from going off at a tangent about misuse of power and bullying etc. It’s far more effective if focus can remain on whether sex is binary, whether is is legitimate/proportionate to segregate by sex in some circumstances, and then whether there should be exceptions that allow some people of the opposite sex to access single sex provision. As I said above, when discussion sticks to these points, disagreement tends to be less toxic.

Women shouldn’t have to waste energy defending basic rights, but blaming trans people is wrong and misdirected. The definition of “woman” hasn’t been confused by trans people; language evolves naturally to reflect real human diversity, just as it always has. Recognising that some women are trans doesn’t erase or harm anyone else. Women’s rights have not been set back by trans inclusion, but by underfunded services, political attacks on bodily autonomy, rising male violence, and governments who benefit when we are divided. Single-sex spaces were created to protect against male violence, not to exclude trans women, who are often survivors of violence themselves. Good safeguarding protects everyone without resorting to discrimination. The real distraction is not trans rights, but the constant attempt to pit women and trans people against each other instead of focusing on the actual causes of harm: misogyny and male violence.

Some woman are trans, Transmen.

I hope that helps.

I strongly believe people should be able to live their lives authentically and to be honest I wouldn’t mind if a transwoman used a female toilet. I would likely pay no attention to the person in the cubicle next to me if they acted like 99% of women - I wouldn’t even notice. I certainly don’t want transwomen to feel unsafe.

What I object strongly to is the change of language we saw around women, particularly women’s health. “People with a womb”, “people who menstruate”. No. We are women. We have very specific health and life considerations related to our biology. We have entirely different organs, hormones, bone density etc etc etc. The fact that anyone changed that language, or worse, changed their actions/services to allay a (noisy) minority is a huge disservice to women everywhere. Widening the concept of women’s health to include people who are not biological women was ridiculous. The decision this week clarified a position that should never have been unclear to anyone: sex is biological and is a protected characteristic.

You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the EQA 2010. Here's a quote from the guidance from the act regarding single sex exemptions -

'729.This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination which allow the provision of separate services for men and women.' (my bolds)

From - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

Single sex services (and sports and occupational requirements) are allowed to exclude males (including those who identify as women and/or have a GRC) on the basis of their sex. Which has been clarified as meaning biological sex. Not self identified or 'certificated' as the judgement put it.

"In the time spent arguing about whether trans women deserve dignity, we could have made real progress fighting male violence, funding women’s services, and strengthening rights."

In the time spent arguing against biological reality and demanding entry to where they were not entitled to go, trans people and their supporters could have made real progress in campaigning for third spaces for themselves, for specific trans-focused services and calmly and rationally setting out their needs to the wider community. But they didn't.

Women have continued to make real progress fighting male violence, funding women's services and strengthening rights over the past decade or so because that's what women do. They get off their arses and actively do things to improve their situation. As we have seen this week.

"As a survivor of sexual assault, I find the celebration around the SC ruling to be a massive distraction from the real issues facing women."

I'm also a survivor of sexual assault and you don't speak for me. Far from being a massive distraction, the ruling is clear confirmation that women need and deserve their own single-sex spaces. It is firmly part and parcel of the real issues facing women.

"There is no credible evidence that trans women make women’s spaces less safe."

There is plenty of credible evidence that allowing men into women's spaces makes women's spaces less safe. TW are men. Make the logical connection. That's not to say all TW are predators. But it is to say that TW belong to the sex class that commits nearly all sexual crime. So no, men don't belong in women's spaces.

"I’ve been mansplained to about my own body more by gender critical men (who we all know are raving misogynists really) in the last two days than in the last two years. It’s telling who’s really trying to control and silence women."

No, that's not acceptable. "We all" don't know GC men are "raving misogynists". Nice slur there about a whole group. In your post you object to bad examples being used to "paint a a whole group". But you yourself are clearly happy to make two massive untrue generalisations: one about women ("we all know" - actually, no we don't) and about a whole group (GC men). Some men are misogynists, yes. But many men also care very much about their female partners, wives, daughters, mothers, friends and all the other female people in their lives and realise - clearly better than some women, it seems - why the ruling was so necessary.

"Thats my take on this small issue which is part of the much wider web of what I believe to be transphobia."

And there we have it. Got there in the end. The protection of women's rights, spaces and services is "transphobia".

Erm… I don’t think so. The guidance you quoted does not mean that biological sex automatically overrides all other rights, nor does it allow services to ignore proportionality or justification. Misrepresenting the law this way creates fear and division when safeguarding should focus on behaviour, not identity.

You have misrepresented what I said. I did not claim that protecting women’s rights is transphobic. I said scapegoating trans people and weaponising safeguarding concerns disproportionately against a vulnerable minority is harmful and often rooted in transphobia. Protecting women from male violence is essential, but that goal is not in conflict with respecting the rights and dignity of trans women, who are overwhelmingly not the source of male violence. It is also telling that the thing which clearly angered you most was me pointing out that gender critical men have spoken down to me about my own body. You are now dismissing my experience of being treated this way by a man. Did it hit too close to home because you are one? Did that make you feel good?
As a survivor, I know exactly who hurt me, and it was not a trans woman. Fighting male violence and supporting all survivors should be the focus, not targeting a marginalised group for existing.

I know this is a pointless request, but it might be a good idea if you actually read the (official Government) document I have linked.

For anyone else interested, there are examples given in that link for services and spaces which can be considered (if considered proportionate and reasonable) to allow single sex services. Examples given are changing rooms, cervical screening and rape crisis groups among others. It states definitively that in such situations, even those with a GRC can be excluded - a rape crisis councillor being the example given.

I'll quote a previous poster as i think it really gets to the point of your outrage -

'And there we have it. Got there in the end. The protection of women's rights, spaces and services is "transphobia".

And just as a point which came up on another thread, if you disagree, say so. Using the reaction buttons in the way you are doing (funny to show disdain) is just rude. It was a point that someone on the other side of the debate to me expressed and I totally agreed with them.

"The definition of “woman” hasn’t been confused by trans people; language evolves naturally to reflect real human diversity, just as it always has."

Really? There are millions of posts all over trans media from transwomen stating they are the "real women", "biological women", "female". The definition of women most definitely has been confused by trans people, and actively so.

Referring to women as "cis women" even when women have asked not to be called that.

Yes, language evolves naturally. But what's happening here is not natural evolution. Cis women, chest feeders, menstruators, baby breeders etc etc have all been forced on us. You may argue that trans people are not the ones doing the forcing. But they're not speaking out against it either and language like this is being used for a reason, i.e. to make it "inclusive". But this is not inclusive and this is not naturally reflecting human diversity.

Lots of women’s domestic violence charities are in full and open support of trans women, just to complicate things further

It is disappointing but predictable to see the same bad faith arguments repeated. No one is forcing language changes onto women. Terms like “chestfeeding” are not replacing “woman” but are used in medical contexts where accuracy matters, such as recognising that not everyone who needs healthcare fits a single experience. This is about providing appropriate care, not about redefining womanhood. Language evolves to better include those who were previously excluded, not to erase anyone, and pretending otherwise serves only to create unnecessary division. I have made my points clearly and I am stepping away from this thread because my energy is better spent fighting real threats to women, not endlessly debating manufactured outrage.

Chestfeeding is not an accurate terms. Breast milk is produced by breasts not the chest

Just to counteract this, a couple of years ago NHS Scotland ran a radio campaign encouraging women to go for their cervical screening appointments. Not once was the word woman used. The term used was 'those with a cervix'.