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?

Because they don't actually want us to see gender identity, they want to abuse and subjugate and control. The power is the point.

But Esses isn't calling for an elimination of trans people. He has literally not written those words, just as the Declaration literally didn't say it.
Why is a bar on males taking female prizes or using female spaces - spaces granted to females because of our vulnerability as against males - an elimination?

But Esses isn't calling for an elimination of trans people. He has literally not written those words, just as the Declaration literally didn't say it.
Why is a bar on males taking female prizes or using female spaces - spaces granted to females because of our vulnerability as against males - an elimination?

Treating your paraphilia or body dysmorphia so you literally feel comfortable in your own skin isn't eliminating you it's providing relief from your distress. Unfortunately the first step to treating your problem is for you to acknowledge that you have a problem but as you still seem to be in denial it's not going to be easy.

Edited to add that I see you now are trying to move the goalposts again. I replied to your post regarding "elimination" but now you changed it to "being chased out of society"

"You don't treat a mental health condition with hormones & surgery."

They do, though, and for good reason: it's the only thing that somewhat works. Everything else has been tried, with zero result. Hormones and surgery do provide relief to at least those suffering from gender dysphoria. It's literally better than nothing, hence why it's done.

The mask has slipped, I'm afraid. "Dress how you please" sounds impressive but that isn't backed up by reality, where Gender Non Conformity is punished wherever it looms, the SC ruling will only make that worse.

Not even JK Rowling can be bothered to pretend she doesn't hate our guts these days.

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

I'm laughing myself at the idea you could read my posts to you and still somehow think I have any respect or concern whatsoever for what you think of me, and that I'm motivated by terror of your disapproval.

Did you hear Michael Jackson died?

100%

No one is "chasing you out of society". We might chase you out of the ladies, but you shouldn't be there anyway and should use the gents like all the other people born with penises.

I'm old enough to remember Boy George and Kurt Cobain wearing dresses. I saw Nicky Wire on stage in a dress with the Manics. No one is telling you not to dress how you like.

Being upset by men fetishising our bodies is 'hating your guts'?

Damn, what do we call those same blokes calling for women to be raped by girldick and die in grease fires? Or is that just robust debate?

She's criticising the men who claim womanhood and making the point that what you wear doesn't make you a woman.

So if the argument that wanting female-only spaces and prizes is 'eliminating' transwomen, we are 'eliminating' males by insisting on them? So is this more of a type of incel argument? That women's rights have 'gone too far' and men have no chances in society any more?

There is no robust evidence that using hormones & surgery gives any better outcome than treatment that doesn't affirm the delusion.

Bingo. And also driven by woman hatred.

So now it's just straight-up erasure and empty promises of "it will all just go away"?

Do you know why transition is the only recommended and ethical treatment for gender dysphoria? It's because the med.establishement tried everything else for a few decades first: incarceration, gaslighting, brainwashing and electric shocks. Some patients had over 60 shock treatment sessions each. They stopped doing this when they realised none of it was "curing" us.

Your ignorant platitudes belong with that rubbish, "doctor"

I didn't see the court suggesting people were eliminated?
How would any people be eliminated in the UK?
Even if all public loos were closed to everyone, it wouldn't kill anyone?

My lived experience is robust evidence. That's why you ignore it, preferring to write your own. It would humanise me too much.

There’s a concept called “extinction burst” in psychology, it’s quite helpful.

While extinction, when implemented consistently over time, results in the eventual decrease of the undesired behavior, in the short term the subject might exhibit what is called an extinction burst. An extinction burst will often occur when the extinction procedure has just begun. This usually consists of a sudden and temporary increase in the response's frequency, followed by the eventual decline and extinction of the behavior targeted for elimination. Novel behavior, or emotional responses or aggressive behavior, may also occur.[2]
For example, a pigeon has been reinforced to peck an electronic button. During its training history, every time the pigeon pecked the button, it will have received a small amount of bird seed as a reinforcer. Thus, whenever the bird is hungry, it will peck the button to receive food. However, if the button were to be turned off, the hungry pigeon will first try pecking the button just as it has in the past. When no food is forthcoming, the bird will likely try repeatedly. After a period of frantic activity, in which their pecking behavior yields no result, the pigeon's pecking will decrease in frequency.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology)

Your lived experience is what scientistd call "an anecdote". Robust evidence, in the scientific sense, means peer-reviewed research into a statistically-significant sample of a population, with steps taken to eliminate or adjust for confounding factors.

Genuinely asking: are there any other circumstances where a person believes something that is demonstrably false, where the treatment is to encourage the false belief, and get others to pretend to believe it too? The end stages of dementia, possibly, if the patient believes they're young and happy again?

Yes. We can certainly see the peckers going full tilt.

It would mean that a lot of people couldn't go out in public any more. We need more public toilets, not fewer.

Sorry - a response to Eresh's post about extinction bursts.

She’s making that point effectively in a pithy, amusing way. Correct, and funny.

Ha @ArabellaScott🤣