Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Is anyone worried about pressure now to change the Equality legislation?

271 replies

Unbeleevable · 26/04/2025 01:27

There's a lot of wisdom in this forum - I wondered in the happy afterglow of the very clear-cut SC and EHCR pronouncements on biological sex … is there a risk that behind this, someone is pulling strings to publish strong statements hoping this will to trigger a surge of pro-trans-rights sentiment leading to a widespread acceptance the EA must change to encompass rights based on declared gender identity? And eventually a political mandate for the same?

In other words - we can’t expect the TRAs will give up. Have we won the battle but not the war?

I have long felt I have landed on the wrong side of history in my GC convictions - I can’t shake the feeling that the recent developments are too good to be true.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
SinnerBoy · 27/04/2025 14:00

ButterflyHatched · Yesterday 02:56

Do you understand what marginalised means?

Notation in the narrow left hand margin of a folio sheet.

Oh. I know, it's what was done to Alison Bailey, Maya Forstater, Jo Phoenix, Roz Adams, K. Stock, Linzi Smith, Rachel Meade,
Glinner.....

Shortshriftandlethal · 27/04/2025 14:06

That was always Stonewall's aim....to have 'Sex' removed entirely as a protected category to be replaced with 'Gender'.

I'm sure some will try, even try in a very determined way to resurrect this.........but it has no chance of passing. It would represent just a last desperate attempt to avoid facing reality and accepting the limits of trans activism.

Not even the Labour party would accept this; though the Greens might.

RedToothBrush · 27/04/2025 14:06

What's fascinating is those who can spot an incoming scandal and those who embrace it and are going to look very silly.

LonginesPrime · 27/04/2025 14:08

As @OhSister suggested on another thread, I think any discussion of amending the EA 2010 to remove women’s sex-based rights would need to start with the question "what is the argument against biological sex being a protected characteristic?".

Reversing the DARVO | Mumsnet

For years, and like many here, I've been frustrated with how debate on sex and gender is continually framed with the feelings, preferences, and percei...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5322553-reversing-the-darvo?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Shortshriftandlethal · 27/04/2025 14:09

PersephoneSeethes · 26/04/2025 13:04

Have you seen how many seats the Liberal Democrat’s have and they are still fully committed to full-fat Trans rights?

I really feel we need to be putting our beady eyes on the Lib Dem’s and the Greens, not just targeting Labour. The Lib Dem’s have a very uncritical policy because they want to ‘be nice and be kind’.

Personally I see that yellow diamond sign of theirs and think nothing other than the Hazard Warning sign for Irritants,

Yes, the Lib Dems are avoiding scrutiny on this issue.....people need to be alerted.....because most of their vote is coming from disgruntled ex Tory voters.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 27/04/2025 14:11

ButterflyHatched · 26/04/2025 02:56

Do you understand what marginalised means?

I think most women do ...

Grammarnut · 27/04/2025 15:04

ButterflyHatched · 26/04/2025 02:56

Do you understand what marginalised means?

Well, I do. Here it was used in " marks i.e. ironic. But the meaning is clear.

SameyMcNameChange · 27/04/2025 15:09

Actually I think there may be some pressure that builds on changes to the associations rules. Because, whilst I agree that it should be possible to have female only same sex only groups, I think there may be some pressure to allow (eg) lesbian groups to admit transwomen if they want to (not sure whether I am for or against that) and to allow LGBT groups to exclude heterosexual non transgender people (which I would be supportive of).

At present, as discussed on the interim guidance thread, it appears to be possible only to have associations for people that share one characteristic, or if more than one, that share both.

I am a little worried that if the Government wants to change that, then things may get hijacked.

Grammarnut · 27/04/2025 15:10

Zita60 · 26/04/2025 10:45

Don't they just!

Tom Daley has no problem with transwomen swimming in women's competitions, but when he wanted a baby, he knew exactly which type of woman to go to.

Surrogacy needs to be banned - it is worldwide exploitation of women. We can now see what sort of gay person Tom Daley is, too. Not the sort that likes women anywhere but sees them as bleeders and breeders.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 27/04/2025 15:18

I can see the Green Party pretty much making this their main priority. And maybe the Lib Dem's.

Labour won't touch it in this term.

Any legislation changes would have to get through the House of Lords too and they've been very effective in stamping down stuff like this.

WandaSiri · 27/04/2025 15:36

SameyMcNameChange · 27/04/2025 15:09

Actually I think there may be some pressure that builds on changes to the associations rules. Because, whilst I agree that it should be possible to have female only same sex only groups, I think there may be some pressure to allow (eg) lesbian groups to admit transwomen if they want to (not sure whether I am for or against that) and to allow LGBT groups to exclude heterosexual non transgender people (which I would be supportive of).

At present, as discussed on the interim guidance thread, it appears to be possible only to have associations for people that share one characteristic, or if more than one, that share both.

I am a little worried that if the Government wants to change that, then things may get hijacked.

They can admit MCW, just not only MCW. And if you think about it, in practice if you advertised a lesbians+anyone bar/night/event, the lesbians who would come are the ones who are cool with males around, and the males who would come would be the ones who want to cop off with lesbians or bank some visuals for later.

ETA: In practice there is no difference between a "transbian" and a male who wants to cop off with or watch lesbians - except the claim to be a lesbian, which I am sure all the males would solemnly swear to.

PersephoneSeethes · 27/04/2025 15:42

RedToothBrush · 27/04/2025 13:48

"Withdraw the legal advice. Act outside the law."

The Greens. Brains of fucking Britain.

I wouldn't trust them to organise a piss up in a brewery.

Unfortunately, they seem to be in line to take over the whole of Bristol and the NW Somerset and Bath. Absolutely raving lunatics.

TheClogLady · 27/04/2025 17:43

I think we need to keep scrutinising EVERYTHING and not rest on our laurels but I’m not really worried about parliamentary changes - even if there is a bit of a future adaption it’ll never go as far as ‘Stonewall Law’ tried to - most people now know that a transwoman is a man and politicians will look stupid as fuck if they try and legislate males into being females now that people are looking out for it.

The climate of fearful silence has been made far less oppressive by Maya’s win (and all the other tribunals and reviews) publications are willing to risk IPSO fines in order tell the truth, the craziest characters (eg Little Owen Jones) have been pushed to the sidelines and even Novara Media have started to seed the notion that trans activism has gone too far.

The trans rights protestors have less and less credibility every time one of the speaks to camera (and some of them are far too narcissistic to stick to the ‘No Debate’ rules.

I do think an ECHR case is probably inevitable but with Jolly-On and Bundlejuice at the helm I think we’ve got a better chance of them unintentionally reinstating sanity across all of Europe rather than achieving a roll back on our progress here.

There is little point in a court-awarded ‘right to privacy’ when technology has already rendered such things impossible - eg as happened with anonymous gamete donors and the advent of commercial DNA genealogy websites. The GRA was written when transsexuals were rare and the public narrative around transsexualism almost always included starting a new life in a new geographical location where no one knew their actual sex (aka the April Ashley/Hayley Cropper experience) and that living entirely in that new identity was an integral part of the treatment for Gender Identity Disorder, therefore anything that ‘outed’ them would be counterproductive to the treatment pathway and thus unnecessarily cruel (especially if that ‘outing’ came about via the medium of tabloid journalism). Jan Morris was a notable exception to that narrative (and perhaps the OG beneficiary of the ‘stunning and brave’ concept decades before the phrase was coined? Morris was already famous and associated with stereotypically manly pursuits so had a social status that could theoretically be lost by transitioning, which in hindsight obvs did not happen as the patriarchy richly rewarded Morris for being exactly the same as before but now sporting a twinset and pearls… but I digress!)

Now that millions of people habitually document their entire lives via social media and gender transition begins with ‘coming out’ rather than after a lengthy psychiatric assessment resulting in a formal diagnosis, it’s surely very difficult to continue to justify the falsification of sex on one’s identity documents via the ‘right to privacy’ (especially as that supposed right to privacy has since been utilised by sex offenders to avoid registration and parents have argued it should come with the right to gaslight their own children by recording the child’s mother as the child’s father on the child’s birth registration document)?

The various corporate policy changes re: censorship/discussing trans encroachment on women’s rights and gay rights (and everyones right to reality) on social media mean we’re unlikely to be restricted to a handful of older style chat forums again any time soon (shout out to MN, obvs, but also to the owners/operators of PistonHeads, Lipstick Alley & Datalounge, along with Josh at the Farms, who kept the spirit of free speech alive for blokes, black Americans, gay men and disgruntled gamers/internet gossip lovers respectively, just as Justine did for us).

We’re yet to reach the point where the police will reliably step in and stop men-with-special-genders from hammering on the doors and windows of a community centre full of terves but a) we don’t really need those sorts of meetings anymore and b) we have all got far more savvy at video documenting & disseminating the footage so bring it on, it might just be the final nail in the coffin of
Gender WooWoo.

All of the big TRA wins are well in the rearview mirror and were achieved, as Christine Burns of Press For Change so memorably described it, ‘in the shadows’.

Now that we’ve all got our metaphorical high beams on the chances of transactivists finding any new shadows to operate in seems pretty small - especially as so many of their once-powerful orgs have either been mothballed, beclowned themselves or are close to bankruptcy (income has fallen while EDI/HR/staff spending has gone up). Who even knows what Mermaids, Stonewall et al think about the Supreme Court ruling? I’ve not seen any press coverage that included them, they have seemingly overreached themselves into irrelevancy.

Still chuckling to myself at the memory of Bundlejuice on telly last week, telling Richard Madeley that it was now time for both sides to get around a table and work out a compromise! Ha! ‘No Debate’ from the TRAs is well and truly dead in the water, now it’s ’Sorry Mate! You are way too Late to come looking for a Debate now (we’re far too busy repairing all our stuff that you smashed up and stomped on when you thought you could get away with it)’

We now need to ensure that we continue to support all the new GC/pro statutory safeguarding orgs that women, lesbians and gay men, parents and people working in various professions and sectors have been forced to found, as there are going to be an awful lot of updated policy documents to scrutinise over the next 12 months.

Just imagining how many Equality Impact Assessments are going to need a do over between now and Xmas is making me reach for the metaphorical smelling salts - lucky we all have plenty of practice this shit now, eh? 😬😆😂

RedToothBrush · 27/04/2025 18:09

How ever this goes there is only one eventual outcome.

Sex is not gender.

We might get there via lunacy laws and ECHR cases, but the eventual destination will ultimately be the same.

TheClogLady · 27/04/2025 18:29

Wow, Butters, I can’t believe you are still attempting to compete at Oppression Olympics despite the official ruling that transwomen are male.
Have you forgotten that under your chosen Intersectionalist Regime white males sit atop of every totem pole?

The UK Supreme Court is made up of 10 male judges and 2 female judges. I can’t imagine those 2 female judges were particularly happy with Scots Gov’s attempt to ‘balance’ boardrooms by shoehorning some additional males into the female category (especially as it’s always transmen that lose the hardest when TWAW becomes policy. At least this ruling rectifies one of the specific intersectional disadvantages of those with both the Gender Reassignment protected characteristic AND the Sex: Female protected characteristic, so that’s something for transwomen to celebrate in solidarity with their transmen brothers and transmasc nonbinary siblings! 🎉🥳. Next goal: additional unisex spaces so that ALL transgender folx have somewhere to pee in peace, not just the privileged, binary, transmedicalist ones! ✌️🫃 🌈 ☮️ ✊🇵🇸🐯🦈💅☂️💫 )

As an aside, I wonder which two of the justices pictured are the female ones? It really is so hard to tell, what with sex being a spectrum and gender identity being an unfalsifiable feeling inside an individual person’s head… perhaps they wear pronoun pins on their robes?

Hang on a minute! If there are more than two sexes how come judges can only be ALAA?(‘Assigned Lord/Lady At Appointment’?)

More evidence of nonbinary marginalisation! We should start a parliamentary petition for a third option…

What do y’all prefer, ‘Lody’ or ‘Lard’?

Is anyone worried about pressure now to change the Equality legislation?
Datun · 27/04/2025 18:35

TheClogLady · 27/04/2025 18:29

Wow, Butters, I can’t believe you are still attempting to compete at Oppression Olympics despite the official ruling that transwomen are male.
Have you forgotten that under your chosen Intersectionalist Regime white males sit atop of every totem pole?

The UK Supreme Court is made up of 10 male judges and 2 female judges. I can’t imagine those 2 female judges were particularly happy with Scots Gov’s attempt to ‘balance’ boardrooms by shoehorning some additional males into the female category (especially as it’s always transmen that lose the hardest when TWAW becomes policy. At least this ruling rectifies one of the specific intersectional disadvantages of those with both the Gender Reassignment protected characteristic AND the Sex: Female protected characteristic, so that’s something for transwomen to celebrate in solidarity with their transmen brothers and transmasc nonbinary siblings! 🎉🥳. Next goal: additional unisex spaces so that ALL transgender folx have somewhere to pee in peace, not just the privileged, binary, transmedicalist ones! ✌️🫃 🌈 ☮️ ✊🇵🇸🐯🦈💅☂️💫 )

As an aside, I wonder which two of the justices pictured are the female ones? It really is so hard to tell, what with sex being a spectrum and gender identity being an unfalsifiable feeling inside an individual person’s head… perhaps they wear pronoun pins on their robes?

Hang on a minute! If there are more than two sexes how come judges can only be ALAA?(‘Assigned Lord/Lady At Appointment’?)

More evidence of nonbinary marginalisation! We should start a parliamentary petition for a third option…

What do y’all prefer, ‘Lody’ or ‘Lard’?

I wonder how many of those judges realise that transwomen don't want unisex toilets? Even if they proliferated like confetti throughout public services.

I wonder if they realise it's the women in the women's toilets that's the goal.

spannasaurus · 27/04/2025 18:41

Peter Daly has a thread on x setting out why the supreme court decision doesn't conflict with the Goodwin case

The Goodwin case is often quoted by the TRAs as the GRA was introduced due to this case. Image is just part of the thread

https://x.com/peter_daly/status/1916519030279594463

Is anyone worried about pressure now to change the Equality legislation?
RedToothBrush · 27/04/2025 18:50

Datun · 27/04/2025 18:35

I wonder how many of those judges realise that transwomen don't want unisex toilets? Even if they proliferated like confetti throughout public services.

I wonder if they realise it's the women in the women's toilets that's the goal.

They are judges. They've heard a lot of bullshit.

MagpiePi · 27/04/2025 18:53

Stepfordian · 27/04/2025 13:27

You mean people who have opted themselves into a minority group, who could at any point opt out of that group, who have the same access to the NHS as every other UK citizen, who are protected under the equality act for their gender reassignment characteristic (although no one can actually define what this means in practice) and their biological sex, who the guidance specifies must not be left without access to facilities, who cannot be distinguished from member of their own sex by the general public in any meaningful way?

…not forgetting they’ve persuaded government departments, the NHS, charities, schools, universities, businesses etc etc, to change policies and language to suit themselves, and there is some kind of trans celebration/memorial/awareness event nearly every day.
Marginalised? 🤔

edited to add:
…and bullied and threatened to the point of people losing jobs and livelihoods if they dared to disagree with pro-trans sentiments and ideologies.

THAT marginalised group?

TheClogLady · 27/04/2025 19:28

spannasaurus · 27/04/2025 18:41

Peter Daly has a thread on x setting out why the supreme court decision doesn't conflict with the Goodwin case

The Goodwin case is often quoted by the TRAs as the GRA was introduced due to this case. Image is just part of the thread

https://x.com/peter_daly/status/1916519030279594463

Oooh, good thread, thanks!

I particularly liked the ending, unsurprising really, seeing as it reiterates what I (definitely NAL) posited upthread, namely that by taking a Gender Reassignment case to the ECHR in the mid-late 2020s Bundlejuice and The Bloviator risk unraveling the 2002 Goodwin ruling and thus inadvertently restoring Sex Based Sanity throughout Europe.

If Jolly-On didn’t cream 10% off the top (to pay for his personal luxury windmill project and kimono dry kleaning bills? I hear fox blood stains are rather difficult to shift from both silky fabric and public reputation…) I’d actually consider making a donation to their fighting fund.

I’d like to be able to say I contributed to the legal case that put Europe back on the Right Side of History (and Biology).

Might even celebrate such a thing with a cigar
😉

Is anyone worried about pressure now to change the Equality legislation?
ButterflyHatched · 27/04/2025 20:28

Helleofabore · 27/04/2025 12:49

Imagine trying to position a group as marginalised when that group managed to convince so many organisations and even government departments for a while, that their deliberate misinterpretation of the EA was the correct one?

I think that after more piss protests and the general emotional outpouring from so many male people, that the next opinion poll on trans rights that will probably be done next year will see a further decline in trust and support for the group. The 'vulnerable and marginalised' narrative is becoming a rapidly shrinking towel that was hiding the entitlement and misogyny all along. That is quite hard to hide now, the towel is miniscule.

Laws exist to protect marginalised minorities both from the seething masses of low-information ignorant bigots who lash out in fear-tinged hostility, and the small number of obsessive crusaders who dedicate their lives to causing us harm.

SternJoyousBee · 27/04/2025 20:32

Gender Identity would require a coherent definition.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 27/04/2025 20:33

gosh The mantruming is an endless joy

i Agree with a PP you must be a deep cover GC agent Butters, you do our work for us

TheClogLady · 27/04/2025 20:36

Trans people are protected from discrimination via the PC of ‘gender reassignment’ as well as the Sex PC in relation to their biological (chromosomes, gonads, genitals and gametes) sex.

Which is exactly what we’ve all been telling you for absolutely AGES, Butters.

SternJoyousBee · 27/04/2025 20:40

Zita60 · 26/04/2025 10:56

@RobinEllacotStrike I’d argue no one believes TWAW not even TW.

I think many TW really do believe it. India Willoughby genuinely seems to believe that he is now "biologically female" - he said on Twitter the other day that he's fairly sure he would pass a cheek swab sex test. He's also said that "changing sex" means that sex changes at a cellular level in the body.

He is seriously deluded.

I don’t think he does believe it …he just needs/wants us to.