Just been “unfriended” for believing in biology

[Somethingthecatdraggedin7]

I posted links about the Supreme Court ruling on my fb feed and have just been unfriended and blocked by a real life friend.
I hadn’t seen her for a long time so we had never talked about the issue because the last time we met (about 8 years ago) transgender wasn’t a thing. Well certainly not in my little corner of the UK anyway.
I am bemused. This is someone I had helped a lot with certain situations. She knows me, she knows that I am a kind and decent person.
But now because I post about the legal reclamation of the word woman I am suddenly persona non grata.
I have friends of differing views on all sorts of topics and we accept that we don’t have to agree on everything. Clearly this particular friend can’t accommodate diverse opinions.
So much for tolerance and inclusion then.

Rklap · Today 10:45

He’s got a dick presumably

Beaten to it several times already, but:

Just Like at least 90% of transw, then.

On your final sentence... I disagree, dependent on the views.

I can give all sorts of examples of viewpoints that people could hold that I would not be at all tolerant of, or curious about. Increased sympathy towards paedophiles, for example. My response to a paedophile sympathizer... "No, I do not tolerate any sympathy towards paedophiles, nor am I curious as to why you think society should be more understanding of them".

Whilst not quite as extreme, "I don't believe sex is real, and if it is it is not important and should always come second to gender identity" is similar. Why should I tolerate a viewpoint that destroys women's and LGB rights and child safeguarding?

I agree that I can't understand why someone would be unable to tolerate the viewpoint "I believe sex is real and matters and I cannot see how one can protect women's and LGB rights if TWAW". But that is just my bias (a bias caused - in my opinion - by the fact that I have used facts, logic, reason and compassion to come to my viewpoint, leaving me biased away from the faith-based position of "TWAW".

I agree, it's a ridiculous thing to say.

My husband is a lovely man. He's kind, hardworking and thoughtful. I would bet everything I have he's not a secret sexual predator or a paedophile.

However, I completely understand that other women who don't know him and probably many who do, wouldn't want to share a changing room, loo, single sex space etc with him simply because he is a man. I'm not insulted by this and he wouldn't be either. It's just common decency.

I don't see why some people find that so difficult to understand and empathise with.

I’m not suggesting women do want any kind of man in their spaces.

The point I was actually originally making was that the person in my example, a trans woman with no penis who passes well enough, skirt, long hair etc, will face issues due to the ruling. So the point is that the ruling is difficult for some people -that is undeniable. Although it is a victory for many women, it is not a universal victory - various issues remain, mainly relating to transpeople. And there are plenty of people who therefore don’t see the ruling as a victory. They could see it as a defeat, or they could see it as a problem that isn’t finished being resolved (as I do). I was merely informing the OP that her surprise at being unfriended was not actually surprising and I gave an example of a person who would face an issue. I was not actually trying to debate the rights and wrongs of toilet users.

OP, you say ‘If anyone doesn’t want to see that they can unfollow me’ but that’s what your friend’s done and you’re not happy about it…
TBH, I agree that we’re losing the ability to tolerate people with differing views but I guess for some people there are some views that are an absolute relationship-ender. I guess we all have them, actually — but what those views are will vary from person to person. I think you just have to accept that your view on this is a relationship-ender for your friend…

She is entitled to her opinion. I have unfriended a couple of people who have been blatantly transphobic, it’s a hill I’m prepared to die on.

OK, I will try to help you by saying this then: it’s not really considered merely a difference in opinion to unreservedly and joyfully celebrate the ruling. To celebrate the ruling as though everything is now resolved could be considered quite an extreme viewpoint. That’s why you’ve been unfriended. Not for a difference in opinion, but for holding a more extreme view. Of course I’ll get flamed for saying this as Mumsnet is one of the places where people with the extreme views chat. The word terf literally has the word radical in it. Radical is extreme. I think it would have been fine to generally support the ruling, but to acknowledge that some people will face problems because of it. But I don’t think that’s what you did?

The point I was actually originally making was that the person in my example, a trans woman with no penis who passes well enough, skirt, long hair etc, will face issues due to the ruling.

Your friend almost certainly faced issues before, but the majority of women were too polite to say anything to him.

Increasing these days there are many more unisex loos than there were. He will just have to scout out the land re toilets etc. as disabled people have to do.

It's the special pleading which gets me.

How's that relevant? I thought we were against genital checks? No one will be checking that only 'transwomen' who have castrated themselves have access to womens spaces, are they? So what are you arguing for exactly, an excemption for your friend only?

No, I’m not arguing for that - I’m merely highlighting the undeniable fact that the ruling creates issues for some transpeople. This person included. People are behaving as though the ruling is the end of the problems - it isn’t - there are loads of unresolved problems, like this one. And that’s why the OP was unfriended.

To celebrate the ruling as though everything is now resolved could be considered quite an extreme viewpoint.

In my opinion though the statement that "I am glad the Supreme Court has clarified what the law always meant", is not celebrating. However, it doesn't stop people replying "terf, bigot, transphobe."

I think going online and stating you’re glad does really qualify as celebrating.

There are unresolved problems. Whilst I broadly agree with the ruling, I wouldn’t celebrate it or say I was glad because there are significant numbers of people upset and worried. Just because you wouldn’t term those people women, they are still people.

Most of the posters here have been pointing out for years that the TAs and their organisations have been misrepresenting the Equality Act and that Males were never entitled to use Female Single Sex provision. Many women have suffered greatly for pointing that out, so I personally am over the moon with the clarification. Anyone who is not, should take it up with the aforementioned.

So you just want us to feel sad for some of these men, men that showed women no empathy whatsoever? Why do you feel they are owed that from the people whose rights they've been trampling?
The ruling hasn't created this issue, because this was always the law, the TRAs who over stepped created this issue. Do you blame them at all?

I think going online and stating you’re glad does really qualify as celebrating.

In fact though, I didn't go on line to state that, because I knew I would get the terf, bigot, transphobe response from the keyboard warriors. I chose to tell my friend that in a private email - and it was factual. She chose not to respond directly, but has now come back with trying to pour doubts on the SC ruling. IMO she has made herself look a bit foolish, but I haven't bothered to say that to her. I am now mostly ignoring her posts.

The problem is that for some people saying anything other than TWAW IS hate speech, and there is no debate. You can’t have a conversation, there is no middle ground, there is no ageeeing to disagree. You are simply a bigot who wants all trans people to cease to exist. I am in publishing and am gc, there is no way I can be open about my views if I want to continue working. My fb timeline was flooded with those posts marking people as safe for TRAs people to be around after the sc ruling. Like gc are so dangerous. Let her go, op, there is no point giving her head space.

I mean you can feel whatever you want. But you’ll have to accept that plenty of people, the unfriender included, do care very much that some transpeople (such as the person I used as my example) will face issues due to the ruling. And that is the whole point of this thread - OP was unfriended because she celebrated the ruling without consideration of people for whom it would cause problems.

My school friend unfriended me 5 years ago when covid started and schools closed . She was moaning about not being able to go out with her dog because of restrictions and when I spoke about home schooling my two children , husband losing his job she turned it round to blaming children for being super spreaders topped up with not agreeing with the job my husband did . He worked in building industry and she objected to building impact on wildlife . I realised while I had friends who didn't always share my values and beliefs she was the only one who actively verbally attacked me and I blocked her and have never regretted it .

You didn't address my question. Do you hold TRAs accountable for illegally using these spaces and pretending/selling the idea that trans people were entitled to use them? Do you think these people owe women an apology for illegal using their spaces? For the women and girls who have been abused as a result? For the fact your friend is unlikely to now get the pass women would likely have granted in the past?

Women are allowed to be happy they have rights.

Double post.

So do the vast majority of transwomen. But as we know from the TRA argument: men aren't defined by having a dick.

Humans are bi-pedal ape-like creatures. And yet the average number of legs a human has os less than 2. Same goes for dicks

I didn’t address your question because it isn’t relevant to the OP’s unfriending. OP was unfriended for celebrating a ruling which, whilst beneficial to the majority of women, causes problems for a significant number of people in society.

If you really want me to address your question, I don’t really know what to say. Putting people into tribes of terfs and TRAs and having a war or assigning blame is unhelpful. Most people would fall into the middle ground between terfs and TRAs and would want to work towards everyone being safe and having appropriate facilities. If there was an easy answer, it would have been done. There isn’t - it’s a difficult issue. Pretending that it is straightforward and only considering the needs of one group and saying the other group will have to find their own solution is silly. And it applies both ways between the terfs and the TRAs.

Go on. Hand on heart. Does your friend really pass in all circumstances. Or are people just being polite and pretending not to notice?

Also I am not sorry to say that while it is a shame for a few individuals, I am happy that the needs of the vast majority are being prioritised here.

And I repeat my offer to join anyone campaigning for 3rd spaces

There are none more bigoted than TRAs. In the actual meaning of the word "bigot".

Of course it's relevant. You're claiming the ruling makes it difficult for people like your friend, when in fact it doesnt, because this has always been the law, nothing has changed. It was TRAs giving your friend a false sense of entitlement to illegally use womens spaces. So do you hold them accountable at all? It seems from the above, you don't?
I'm also not clear on why you think it was womens jobs to help men who don't want to be men, find a place to urinate? It was nothing to do with feminists until they started to trample our rights.