Does anyone else feel disheartened?

[ItsCoolForCats]

I was so elated at the ruling and the implications for women's sex-based protections.

And I am happy that certain media outlets have realised (begrudgingly in some cases) that refusing to air the concerns of women over the last decade has lead to a very one-sided debate. It's great to see orgs such as Sex Matters being quoted so extensively now.

However, I'm really disheartened by the sheer scale of the push back and by the fact that so many women don't support the ruling. I mean, why would anyone think that women don't deserve fair and safe sporting opportunities, for example? Why is it always women that are expected to forgo their rights?

The Supreme Court ruling should be definitive, but it doesn't feel like the end. There is the judge bringing the case to the ECHR (I know some legal experts have dismissed any chances of success), but I think activists are going to pile a lot of pressure on the government to make concessions and look at amending the law. The disquiet about the ruling amongst so many Labour MPs about the ruling is concerning me.

Is anyone else feeling a bit dejected?

Their intentions are clearly to protect women from paraphilic men invading women's spaces. This is a legitimate and laudable aim.

It's either delusion or just deliberate lying. Possibly a combination of both.

Doesn't really matter in the end.

They can't have our stuff.

On a philosophical level, even if women theoretically agreed to pretend that some men are women, it wouldn't make them women.

The futility of the argument is, I think, part of the attraction.

Maybe after another six years (did you hear the Berlin Wall came down too?) you'll work it out.

In the meantime, all of them are men and will always be men, something they have in common with all transwomen and no woman.

You've caught up pretty concisely 😆

You'll be a bigot, a nazi, and guilty of literal violence by your next post .

Graham Linehan is not like the other men you listed. It's dishonest to pretend that he is.

Daddy finds swaggering about calling women bigots is comforting in some way. It’s a big old cope.

Umm, do you think listing all the people who support the TRA "side" who are either in prison or are awaiting trial is the way this thread should go?

OP, if you were feeling disheartened, I hope this thread is demonstrating why you've no need to be.

The rage and hatred shown by men on here, unfolding in real time and directed at women who dare to voice disagreement, is a perfect illustration of why our arguments were correct - and also of the fact that we've won.

The more men rage against women's rights, the more they demonstrate why we need them.

And to follow on because I really struggling to find any hint of logic in the TRA insistence that trans is being eliminated: if there were any 'elimination' going on, it would be that by allowing males to use the sex-based rights of females, female sex-based rights are eliminated, because females can't use them to bolster their position in a patriarchy if males can use them too. They become unisex rights.
Which makes no sense.

Are you not telling me because you know I'll laugh at you?

It's Glinner isn't it? lol. At least the others are successful.

So even more so than at the beginning of the thread, I'm disheartened because I can't grasp how any of this elimination stuff is remotely arguable and it's not possible to have a sensible conversation with a movement that claims something this illogical.

It's not about winning an argument, per se. It's about subjugating women.

Stuff like this turns up every day. James Esses isn't some nobody.

Anyway...
No, I'm not disheartened! It's beginning to sink in that we've won. The other side is in the bunker of denial, surrounded by cronies. Every day, my heart grows lighter.

It is brilliant.

Ok and I raise you

Have a lurk on TRA Reddit, these weird, feverish arguments are par for the course. It’s a bit scary, really.

^ images like this pop up every day

As I said, its about subjugating, threatening, and abusing women.

I expected angry controlling men to argue their case and not reflect, it's natural for them. Also, the 'be kind' supporters were never instantly going to absorb the truth they previously ignored.
However, the ruling stands - biology is real and matters.
Men can pick whatever label they like, they are men.

Yes it's so obvious.
Yes apparently they're the victims.

It's DARVO on steroids.

I'm nabbing this argument.

Also, something the Omnicause-type of leftists like to say is that "I don't see race" is a racist statement because those who don't see race don't see racism. And they have a point: if we don't see that Black people's hair is really really tightly-curled and needs to be managed in specific ways that white people's hair doesn't, we end up writing school uniform policies that discriminate against Black girls.

Yet the exact same people want us to stop seeing sex and instead see gender identity (how, given that it's invisible?) and call us transphobic when we say that denying sex is sexist.

James Esses is 100% correct. By definition anyone who suffers from the delusion that they are "trans" is suffering from a mental health condition whether it is body dysmorphia, internalised homophobia, autogynephilia or whatever. You don't treat a mental health condition with hormones & surgery. You certainly don't affirm the patient in their delusion.

The others don't have multiple classic comedies to their names. I'd say, based on that, that Glinner is a successful writer.

Then don't tell me trans people aren't being chased out of society

1. He's right. We don't encourage anorexics to diet and we don't encourage people who think they shouldn't have legs to get them amputated. When Rachael Dolezal claimed to be Black, she was criticised for appropriation, not encouraged.
2. Nothing in that post suggests that men should be prevented from wearing dresses and makeup. The problem isn't men wearing feminine-coded clothing, it's men claiming to be women and demanding admission to women's spaces.