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? 🙄

It's like lostcat's ramblings on steroids.

Transwomen want to have more rights than any of us. They have the rights and privileges of being male, the rights under the GRA and EqA of gender reassignment and they have spent years insisting they must have women's rights as well to the detriment of half the population.

I thought I was pretty clear. And except in this particular thread, many other women do too.

Dialling back the nasty 'us versus them' would benefit everyone. Simple enough?

@TemporarilyChangedToday said the priority now must be minimising harm for all, which requires much less demonising and rabble rousing.
Would it be so much better if we remember:
There is no such thing as Gender Dysphoria. No one can change their DNA.
It is not good to think that cosplay can become reality. People that go to SciFi conventions in costume seldom think they are from the planet Zorg or wherever. Women on a Jane Austen weekend, don't usually carry a reticule into the office on Monday.

How can we do that when they (the TRAs) are the ones issuing the death and rape threats?

I believe that American pies don't always have lids.

Utter madness!

😲

The same would apply to that minority of Trans-folk too of course.

Civility, reason and rights are not a competitive sport.

I see the board has been visited by another intellectual colossus insisting that women STFU.

Dialling back the nasty 'us versus them' would benefit everyone. Simple enough?

Oh I agree. When are you going to tell the TRAs, MRAs and their allies to dial it back since the vitriol originated from them? Let me know how that goes and good luck!!

Until then I stick with "No men of any kind should be in women's spaces". I don't think that's nasty.

Ah! American pie, good song that.

Well, I wish you lots of luck with that. I hope you are able to get the peeps on Reddit to accept the result of the Supreme Court ruling with good grace, and I will await your successful report that they are all going to follow the law as it has been clarified.

Any issue of genuine or perceived unfairness could only be explored and addressed with reasoned debate. Which would obviously be a very sensible thing to do.

Extreme folks on both sides of the argument are drowning out more reasoned and more nuanced discussions.

It is obvious that clarity and resolution is needed given the current febrile debates.

Whatever happened to "No debate"?

We've got clarity and resolution.

TRAs and their minions don't like it, but that's not women's problem to solve.

That's it, and that's all.

I think it broke.

Well thanks. But I'm just another woman with at least some views that are different to yours.

I have no doubt that there will always be at least a minority on both sides who will be pretty unreasonable. But it's not logical to use that as a reason to be unreasonable ourselves...

Yes the current ruling brings clarity in some ways.

It's the nature of the debate and triumphalism that I (and many others) worry about.

What are you arguing for TemporarilyChangedToday?

The law is on our side, in fact it always has been. It has been clarified very clearly that men (of any kind) should not be in women's spaces. That's it. Any nastiness happening is from others pushing back and saying they don't care what the law is.

So we have progressed from 'no debate' to 'both sides' - and all the while, mammals could not change sex - and now the Supreme Court confirms that sex in the EA2010 means sex, not a certificate. Where is this 'unreasonable minority' in the sex realist side?

I start to really dislike the term "nuance". It's just another way of saying "shut up" at this point.

It really is beginning to feel that way…

Please give examples, as I don't understand what you mean by this: 'the nature of the debate and triumphalism'.