Please hold my hand. My daughter has drunk the koolaid, and I’m more upset & angry than I think I have ever been. (SC ruling)

[MarvellousMonsters]

This will be long, so I apologise in advance. I find myself in a grey area between radfems and woke-maidens. I don’t hate trans people, I don’t hate anyone, although as a woman in my 50s I’ve had enough male fuckwittery in my life to have a very low opinion of men in general. I do believe that there are some people with such intense dysphoria that counselling and support are not enough and surgical transition is their best solution, but I don’t believe anyone can change sex, or is born in the wrong body.

That said, I detest gender stereotypes and the confusion of sex & gender, I’m the generation of women that fought really hard on a day to day level to reject these stupid made up rules about what girls can and can’t do/wear/think, and seeing the ‘men in a dress’ become accepted as that meaning they are women is a huge step backwards, and it makes me furious.

I honestly don’t care who wears what, if a man wants to wear dresses and make up, that’s fine. I’ve spent the last 15-20 years in t-shirts and jeans, no make up etc, so I don’t see why men can’t wear skirts if they want to. As Eddie Izzard used to say, they aren’t women’s clothes, they are my clothes. (So disappointed that Eddie has now claimed to be Suzie)

I am not a dress.

I genuinely don’t care about sharing spaces like toilets, it’s possible to create safe unisex toilets, the focus on this is a distraction and needs to stop. But when men claim to identify as women and skew crime statistics, that bothers me. Men who claim to identify as women and try to insist that lesbians should date them, that’s controlling and gross. Hospital wards and bays are segregated for a reason, and demanding we use she/her pronouns doesn’t mean a man should be put in a bed in a women’s bay. Same with any communal changing area, be it the gym or a shop fitting room. Women don’t have a penis, it’s really that simple.

This morning the SC ruling was mentioned briefly and my adult daughter is furious with it. She claims it’s a step backwards, that it will cause hate crimes and violence towards trans people, that anyone who supports it is a hateful bigot and wishes harm on a vulnerable minority. I tried to calmly explain to her that no laws have been changed, only clarified, and that trans people haven’t lost any rights, nor will any MtF prisoners be immediately transferred to male prisons to be raped and murdered by the other prisoners. Women aren’t going to be randomly strip-searched by male police officers who will claim they thought it was a man, etc. She just refuses to believe that women’s safe spaces need to be just for actual biological women, because she believes trans women don’t pose a threat, and even when I explained that most trans identifying MtF don’t have surgery etc and are still fully functioning males, and showed her examples of MtF assaulting women, she won’t accept that the actions of these men mean that we should be able to hold safe spaces based on biology. I tried to explain that I understand that trans people are vulnerable to hate crimes etc, and that we need to take steps to keep them safe, but not at the expense of women. We’ve had a long and very heated argument where she has accused me of being a bigot and a bunch of other incredibly hurtful things, mostly by refusing to accept that there is a toxic sub-set of (mostly MtF) TRAs that are actually autogynephiles/INCELs with misogyny at their core, and that these people threaten actual physical harm to anyone (like JKR) who dares to question their claims of womanhood.

Help me. Help me find a way to reach her. She’s an intelligent educated young woman who has been raised with feminist values, I have modelled non-stereotypical behaviours and given her complete freedom to choose her direction in life, with no expectations or limitations based on her sex. I’m genuinely appalled to hear this garbage coming from her.

On what basis do all these people who are not experts in the law disagree with the Supreme Court's decision that the law does not place trans people's rights above women's rights?

Your friends don't sound very bright.

This, sadly.

No one thinks it is a victory for whom- and why do they say that?

the people who brought the case are celebrating the decision, they think it’s a win. I’m going to be honest and ask why you think it is a loss, and for whom?

If it is actually a Lose, wouldn’t that suggest that there is a conflict of rights and that some level rights are pie?

This. People are allowed to disagree with you, you don't have to "reach her." Let her have her own opinions.

Her beliefs are not based on evidence whereas those of OP are - that sex is binary and immutable, as the Supreme Court (acting as a reasonable person would act) has pointed out is meant by the EA2010. To accept that men can be women drives a coach and horses through the protection given to sexual orientation as well as to sex - as Lord Hodge said, these protections become incoherent leading to injustice for gays, lesbians and women in general. That's fact, belief that TWAW has led to injustice, particularly for lesbians who have been prevented from having same sex associations and been called bigots for not accepting transwomen (men) as sexual partners.

I think the problem is that it's the OP's DD who doesn't think it's OK to think differently MarvellousMonsters sounds like a reasonable tolerant and thoughtful woman

Yet she's the one who thinks her DD needs to "be reached" come round to her way of thinking ?

She may be thinking of his EO re transwomen in women's spaces (good thing) and protectionism. Absolute free trade is damaging to a country's growing industries in some cases, for example, tariffs are used to protect them. Trump is a business man when all is said and done - he probably knows the effects of absolute free trade (and we can look round the UK at soaring energy prices compared to e.g. France where energy companies are state owned).

I think she might say yes, because TWAW. Obviously he is no longer a man.

Wasn't going to reply here but I will. I have read the Trans stuff and for a while thought, oh, yes, sex is a spectrum (despite studying biology at university many, many years ago). Then I read a philosophy article on what made a woman (my first degree is in philosophy) and woke up. It's not the same as 'boat people' or 'being invaded by people of fighting age' (and someone entering any country without permission is an illegal immigrant), because those terms, whether we like them or not, are based on some factual evidence (re: the grooming gangs in e.g. Rotherham, the perpetrators for the most part came from a community isolated from the outside world and which has very strong ideas about ;
'in' and 'out' groups; for them the 'out' group did not have the same worth/rights as the 'in' group). Trans ideology has no factual basis, it is all about feelings. Facts come before feelings every time.

I don't hate trans people. However, there is no comparison with gays or lesbians, who are same sex attracted. Sexual attraction is a fact we can see, being trans is not, it's a feeling about something the person feeling it can know nothing about. How can a man feel like a woman? And gays and lesbians are particularly affected by this 'feels' idea. Both groups have been prevented from having same sex groupings and have been told that they are body fetishists for refusing to have sexual relationships with transpeople. Lesbians in particular (but also gay men) have been called bigots for saying they are same sex attracted, not same gender!

I'm curious what history curriculum can include discussion of Trump as a fascist (he's not). Presumably WWII?

In fairness, I have given absolutely no thought to the possibility that I might be wrong about women's rights being just as important as trans women's.

How much thought do you think I should be giving this before I am allowed to dismiss it as misogynistic nonsense?

I think the lesson was about the rise of Hitler and fascism in Germany...and the teacher made a link to the upcoming American election and Donald Trump.....the lesson was just before the american election when all the talk was about fascism and Trump was accused of being a fascist etc

My daughter says the teacher was young, naive, and her history knowledge was not very good,

None. I think both rights can be supported at once without one taking prevalence over the other. I think rapists, molesterers and abusers are the problem, not trans people.

White people fighting to keep spaces for whites only didn’t think they were wrong either

But the people celebrating the Supreme Court decision think that too. Trans people's rights and women's rights are equally important and can and should both be supported without one taking precedence over the other.

The people complaining about the Supreme Court decision are effectively complaining because they have been told that trans people's rights are not more important than women's rights. And that if you try to meet trans women's needs and women's needs in the same space then it is no longer a single sex space and the women's needs are no longer being met.

I think that if you have not read and understood the judgment, you should read and understand it before you decry it as a miscarriage of justice. And if you have read and understood it and you still disagree, you believe women's rights are less important than trans people's.

So obviously the people protesting this judgment are wrong.

PS @Mumble12 your apartheid analogy is offensive and doesn't work.

Racial segregation was about keeping the oppressed class (black people) away from the class of oppressors (white people). There was no moral justification for this.

Single sex spaces for women are largely about giving the oppressed class a place of safety and sanctuary from their oppressors. (Although in reality I think most people of both sexes prefer single sex toilets and changing rooms for privacy reasons.)

In this case the oppressed class are female people and the oppressors are male people. By insisting on the inclusion of trans women you are taking that safe space away from the class of oppressed people by allowing people from the class of oppressors into it. So it's not the same as racial segregation at all.

If segregation is wrong, does that mean she's completely happy to use the gents? I suggest that she would be wiser not to use the gents - the risk of assault if she does may be low, but it is significant. Can she recognise that "segregation" safeguards people?

Yes, well, male people with transgender identities prefer the term "women", but they are not women, just like liberal feminists are not feminists.

And I happen to think that the beliefs of women who think that the interests of male people with transgender identities are more important than the interests of female people are less valid than mine. Don't we all, to a certain extent, think that?

If I thought someone else's beliefs were more valid than mine I would share them.

Mine too!

What about Black people who want spaces for Black people only, like a meeting to discuss experiences racism, maybe a lobby group to promote better consultation of Black groups by Parliament? Is that also wrong?

There are literary awards, grants, scholarships, jobs etc that are only for black people. Do you think that's wrong? Or maybe that white people should be able to help themselves to them all by just saying "I'm black"? No?

[edited to say, I am adding another response to the post you reacted to Flirts sorry it looks like I'm responding to you! did that a bit wrong]

On the other hand, I am a liberal.

There are plenty of views that I either disagree with or think are basically baseless but they're not invalid. People may believe things I disagree with (like you for example) but neither you nor I are the thought police. And I don't want to live in a country where anyone tries to control beliefs. If the acts they lead to are harmful then those can be restricted by law but again, if the law causes more harm than help then it can be changed.

All through history, autocrats have tried to control what people think and all through history, they have failed. You calling my beliefs invalid is pointless at best, and thought policing at worst.

But I tell you this -- whenever you walk out of your front door you may encounter people with beliefs you find odd or offensive, or who do things you dislike or find repugnant ... You can just let them be.

I'm not thought policing in the slightest.

Anyone who believes that there are both female women and male women and that what the male women want takes priority over what the female women want is entitled to hold that belief, just as they are entitled to belong to other misogynistic religions.

But I don't have to respect that belief, and I'm glad the Supreme Court treated that belief with as much respect as it deserves.

And I don't have to do you the courtesy of calling that belief feminism, when it is the literal opposite.

It's hilarious that you've just called those who disagree with you autocratic, apparently without the slightest trace of irony. Come back to me with a list of real feminists who have tried to get people like you fired or cancelled for your beliefs and then we'll talk.