Christine Jardine MP: Ensure rights that trans people have freely used for decades are not overturned

[SidewaysOtter]

Lib Dem spokesperson for Women and Equalities. Guess she doesn’t care so much about the “women” part of that title, eh? 🙄

“Oh sorry, I thought there was no debate on such matters?”

<innocent face>

The LDs are the voice of the reasonably well off, mostly white, middle classes. Coincidentally, these were the types protesting at the weekend. The 'well it doesn't affect MEEEE' crowd. Totally out of touch.

I must confess I have a lib dem female mp. I have always found her to be open to listening to me. I suspect she is no a fan of the Lib dem position on this one but is expected to toe the party line.

I was much relieved by the SC ruling, though I know its only 1 step forward. I have a female LibDem MP, elected for the first time last year, but of mature years (like me). I think I'll write to her, using some of the excellent points above, and see what response I get.

I emailed CJ and got the following reply:

Ah yes. Toxic debate.

That seems a roll back.

And she is very much responsible for the 'toxic stuff ' trotted out SINCE the ruling.

She has had every opportunity to dial back and reassure. She has chosen not to.

Clarity, clarity, wherefore art thou, clarity?

There's half the establishment wandering around in the streets shouting for it. "Where the fuck is the clarity (in this extremely clear judgement carefully written more or less in Peter and Jane language as if the judges foresaw all this)?" they cry.

<clue: when it turns up, they won't want it. It will be the Wrong Clarity.>

Guys, it will still all say men aren't women and can't go into single sex spaces.

“Confusion and concern in reporting”? Surely the responsibility for that lies in those doing the reporting, including those who write letters indicating trans people are victims of culture wars and deeply entrenched structural inequalities?

And two uses of “toxic debate”. It’s only toxic because women had to shout and scream and demand to be heard (because #nodebate) and when we said things people didn’t want to hear, those people wanted to shut us up. If they’d listened politely in the first place…

Interesting, I emailed my LD MP re CJ's initial statement and got almost the exact same statement in reply - just 2 paras reordered is the only difference from CJ's in @JDEdin 's s/shot above! Methinks LD HQ got a lot of feedback on CJ's statement ;-)

Anyway, that's good, Lib Dems accept SC judgement.

Here's the reply I got for others' info:

Thank you for getting in touch to share your thoughts about the recent Supreme Court ruling.

Liberal Democrats respect this ruling, as with all judgements of the Supreme Court.

I therefore feel that, as a priority, the Government must provide further guidance and clarity on what this judgement means for people. This guidance must ensure - as the ruling makes clear - that everyone’s rights and dignity are upheld, including women and trans people. Liberal Democrats will keep pressing for this guidance and clarity.

However I do feel that the ruling has unfortunately, in its reporting, led to a lot of confusion and concern for too many and further inflamed the toxic debate that has characterised this issue for too long.

We need to get past the toxic debate which we have all experienced and finally have a positive and genuine good-faith conversation about ensuring everyone’s safety and dignity.

I hope this helps to clarify our position. Thanks again for getting in touch.

It’s only ‘led to a lot of confusion’ among those who have a hard time comprehending reality, mate.

Yes I think LDHQ have realised the messaging all has to be about respecting the decision of the court.
And they’ve remembered that women are 51% of the voters population and trans people are not!

They really can fuck off with the toxic bullshit now.

Women wanting their legal protections in law to be in practice and not on paper, trampled by men wanting more than their share is not 'toxic'. Stating reality is not 'toxic'.

Screaming, pissing and threatening to kill people isn't 'toxic' either, it's just boring and simple pathological, criminal and antisocial behaviour.

Oh well she’s got the guidance and clarity she wanted now!
Time to move on

What a load of vitriol and 'whataboutery' on Mumsnet today! I sincerely hope this does not represent everyone on here...

The problem that some women have with some men is undoubtedly real. But trans-folk in general are not the right target.

In fact even taking a 'women first' stance, this solves little, whilst it certainly makes life more terrifying for those decent trans men (biologically women) and trans women (biologically men) who you want to use toilets mismatched to their gender-presentation, for example, despite them perhaps up I til now being able to live without having to constantly 'out' themselves. When a male-identifying person comes in to your women-only space, you are no further forward in terms of being able to challenge (if that's what you want to do).

If the aim of law and legislation is to minimise harm, then the trans community needs protecting (and given the vitriol here we can see why). Anyone with trans friends will be aware of a litany of assaults, abuse and discrimination that trans people experience. Up until now trans folks have tended to use spaces where they 'pass' best where they can for very obvious reasons.

There is very little evidence that trans women (biological men) as a whole are disproportionately dangerous to women. Of course some are (as are other non-trans men and women). Whereas there is abundant evidence that non-trans women and men are abusive to trans folks, particularly trans women.

It is not a competition!!. Women's rights to safety are not in opposition to trans folks rights to safety. The triumphalism and hatred displayed in some of these mumsnet posts today seem to me to completely miss a human response, and fly in the face of evidence too.

Whether someone accepts or not the court's conclusion (that sex means biological sex) the priority now must be minimising harm for all, which requires much less demonising and rabble rousing.

Of course I expect that for me right now too....

Wut?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Men (of any kind) need to stay out of women's spaces. Just like they used to do a couple of decades ago.

Yeah, women need to shut up about all the vitriol they’ve been subjected to by those kind, gentle and lovely Trans-folk. They’ve not targeted women at all. How silly of us women to have argued to reclaim our rights. We should have asked all those hateful, placard waving lovely Trans-folk first if they thought it okay…😵‍💫

I was going to reply further, but honestly, I can’t be bothered.

They can feck off. 😌

' I have no idea what you are trying to say.'

... I know.

I don't understand what she's on about. Is she objecting to the ruling or to the media coverage of it? And why would new legislation be needed? It's done is clarify the existing legislation.

I think it's "Some people are very special actual full human beings, whilst some others aren't really people at all but are partially-sentient service bipeds for the desires of the special ones."

Ah, a slightly reworded version of the 'rights are not like pie' argument. Not seen that one in a while.

I attach an illustration which might help. Also a friendly hint that scolding the little wimmin tends to go down badly on this board.

HTH.

What's the point in coming on to a forum if you can't (clearly) explain to others what's in that little head of yours. Just a tip, not everyone is able to read telepathic thoughts.

But until you can, here is something for you to think about - men need to stay in their own areas and bugger off out of the women's. It’s the law and always has been.

Thank you for summarising so clearly the (wrong) assumptions that you are making. (If I am correct in assuming that you are referring to transfolk as the former, and women as the latter?) That is really helpful for me to understand where the hatred comes from.

Obviously no-one would expect anyone holding these assumptions to feel any different.

I understand what you're trying to illustrate, but surely that's a tart!?

Nope. Still not a clue. Should I ask chatgp to translate?