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?

Generally it's not encouraged to counter or argue with a dementia patient AFAIK, so as not to cause distress. But that's a very different scenario.

Ah, true enough. I only have anecdotal evidence. I do wish proper studies were done on the matter.

It’s just silly hyperbole.

If that unattributed screen shot is typical of the research you are basing your hypothesis on then it just confirms my point that there is no robust evidence of the value of hormones & surgery to treat those with the "trans" delusion.
n=7 FFS That's just anecdata. The Tavistock Clinic treated 9K patients but even the small amount of research they published was so deply flawed as to be useless because there were no controls or anything other than continuous affirmation of the patient's delusion.

I know this is pedantic and I don't want to derail the thread with my struggles but aside from the fact that I still don't see any calls for elimination, I also don't see why males however they identify or present or however they want to live their lives, think females should allow female sex-based rights to be become unisex rights.
And why females having sex-based rights is an elimination.
It's obviously not. Because trans people are covered by the Gender Reassignment clauses of the Equality Act, so have their own rights. So why can't transwomen use the rights that they have under the Act, in addition to the rights and structural societal power they have as males to increase the numbers of their own spaces and prizes?

This is what I was thinking, that's a kindness to someone who isn't capable of recognising reality, but I couldn't think of any other circumstances. I think even the people who think they're Napoleon are encouraged to think through the logical reasons they can't be.

Unfortunately those invested in providing affirmative care to patients suffering from the "trans" delusion have zero incentive to do any research to prove or disprove the value of such treatment. In fact quite the contrary is true of all the private doctors.

I know suicide isn’t the only metric to judge the efficacy of an intervention but aren’t there statistics that show suicide rates of trans people pre and post puberty blockers/hormone therapy are unchanged?

Because, for many of them, the women's space is the prize

I came here to offer an opinion on why the world isn't rushing to agree with your awesome victory, and you have all affirmed my opinion wonderfully - it's not just that you don't see trans people as human, you are incapable of it.

JKR is also highlighting something that's actually quite worrying about these men: they think that wearing lingerie etc is what makes a woman a woman. That we are like shop mannequins, that we exist to have clothes put on us, that our womanhood is defined by our clothing choices, making us a kind of dress-up doll and not full human beings.

Judging by Daddy's disdain for JKR's comment, I'm guessing that it struck rather too close for comfort for him. Does he recognise himself as one of the men in lingerie that she speaks of?

You clearly don't understand how medical research is done. It's done by collecting data not anecdotes A single case report if unusual enough might warrant further investigation but is meaningless in itself.

I spy with my little eye, a big fat dose of DARVO.

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

That. ^^

Add that to the optics of someone here to shout at women for having legal rights while calling himself 'Daddy'.

I'm also enjoying ticking off the acquired and DARVO'ed phrases as they come. Mask slipping, etc. It's all learned from women. And then misapplied because it's not understood or linked to anything beyond 'here's words that are supposed to be impressive and convincing'. I suppose it's a back handed compliment.

I get no facts or any real coherent reason for having invaded this thread so far, just a lot of incoherent ranting that still has nothing to do with women having legal protections, ones they had all along that were illegally and wrongly stepped on, and which did women a lot of damage in the years it took them to get a court to prove that their rights did in fact entitle them to say no to men.

No matter how cross men are that women have boundaries they can't trample, the law still stands. No matter how much you rant and carry on, women here can't change the judgment. And why would they want to?

Unfortunately your thought processes seem quite disturbed. This might be an expression of your underlying psychiatric disorder or it might be as a result of your treatment but the paranoia is off the scale.

I have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised, though. Medically transitioning is a massive upheaval in someone's life, so unfortunately those who were already fragile are likely not to manage to deal with it well. I've also seen too many people engage in the medical process when their life was still reeling from their coming out; predictably, once the initial euphoria abated, they found themselves in an even worse place that before. Not to mention that the results of the medical transition may not hold up to the expectations...

I've been assessed by a actual senior psychiatrist, rather than an online bully pretending to be one, and he didn't mention any of that. I'm sure he'd be pretty fascinated by you though.

And again, this is why everyone thinks you're weird and dislikes your transphobia

How does that odd non sequitur relate to @ArabellaScott’s post about dementia?

Agree @PrettyDamnCosmic

True, but the message was that if men couldn't use women's toilets they were being eliminated. This was the point I was referring to.
Men don't need access to women's loos to exist. No one would stop existing due to not having public loos (we'd just all wet ourselves).
(I do agree we need more loos in public spaces & need them regularly myself as not great at holding!).

Perfectly put. And yes about the name.

This isn't quite the winning argument you think it is, MBD.

What do you mean @ArabellaScottit works on Reddit and Bluesky!!

Does the psychiatrist help you with the dysphoria?

I know this is pigeon chess, but let's just spread that out a bit for any sane lurkers around.

The GI pov being shared: You don't see trans people as human.

Evidence: the supreme court has found the law gives women rights to single sex spaces, to be distinct as a sex class from men with transgender identities, and you won't sacrifice those rights quietly and go on being abused and subordinated by a very wide range of men with a very wide range of agendas and submit to their superiority over you. In fact you insist they need their own spaces created to meet their needs instead of giving them yours.

The women's pov being shared: You don't see women as human.

You show an absolute disregard and lack of interest for any consequences or impact on women from men in their spaces that led to having to fight this through the courts. (Much evidence available). A view that it is terrible for men to suffer risk and indignity but not women. A view that women having rights to say no is an appalling failing. A view that there is no way to meet the needs of these men without hurting women and it is evil of women to resist this so it's no wonder everyone hates them. And you can't see the pictures women have shared threatening to kill women, and won't acknowledge they exist, never mind that they are evidence of very wrong behaviour.

I wonder if Naomi's free to give us a quick view on which one would stand up in court?