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?

Evangelical christians are well into the UK, several are MPs, and they all support you.

Alasdair Henderson of the EHRC is one. His credits include representing Keira Bell and suing Ealing council to remove the buffer zones around abortion clinics.

Paul Conrathe also represented Keira Bell. He's an evangelical pastor who represented a man who wanted to stop his ex-partner having an abortion.

Justice Hodge of the SC is also an Evangelical. He has stated that gay people need to repent (ie Conversion Therapy) and was responsible for gay marriage not being legalised in Bermuda.

Globally, the religious and/or political groups attacking trans rights are the same groups attacking abortion rights, gay rights and anything that might undermine "traditional gender roles", and they have serious money to spend on their lobbying. Uganda made being gay a capital offence last year thanks to US evangelical lobbying.

If you think this doesn't apply to you or any other leftie atheists, than that just makes you a mug on top of everything else.

Mate. Put the drugs down. Take the tinfoil hat off. No one is eliminating you. But have you thought that if the TRAs hadn’t been so err….. insistent about demanding men going into women’s spaces, things could have gone on as they were.

Even if that were true, they were
not making a new law, they were clarifying an existing one, so their ruling is not based on their personal views.

Hold on. I’m confused. We’re leftie atheists now? I thought we were right wing Christian fundamentalists?

"The Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights" says otherwise. "Elimination" is the word they use.

Hi OP. I don’t know how long you’ve been hanging out here, but it’s been like this for years. Fighting transactivism is like fighting the hydra. Every time we chop a head off, another appears.

Eventually we will get there, but with every big win or significant change, I always used to think, “surely this is the turning point?” None of them have been and there have been a lot of discussions about how far all our institutions were infiltrated before we became aware.

It became apparent around the time self-ID was debated in the UK, back in 2018 that there was huge regulatory capture. The whole operation appeared to have been set up like a predatory business would set up a hostile takeover. Had women from this board not found out and objected in our thousands, it probably would have gone through, as it has in so many other countries.

So this is another battle in a very long war. It always feels disappointing that there is so much pushback and that it’s so hostile. We’re in it for the long haul though and we are making progress. It may be slower than we’d like, but that’s because we started from a position where women’s rights had been totally undermined, mostly by stealth.

The SC ruling is huge because it confirms everything I have outlined above. It may not be nice to be in this fight, but we have come an incredibly long way since 2018 and we’re not going to give up.

Er…. Are you on glue? It states the elimination of discrimination against women and girls. Not calling for a whole scale cull of the trans community. So you can rest easy now.

Also, OP, as you can see from this thread, those fighting us are loud, aggressive and often unhinged. The powers that be cower before these men. I wish they’d stop, but it is understandable. Unlike many of the women on this board, they’re not used to being targeted by narcissists.

Any chance we could call Bunbury and get back to sensible discussion with the sane posters?

No. Google "an-international-human-rights-law-analysis-of-the-whrc-declaration"

"It becomes clear that what the Declaration is attempting to do is put forward a case for the elimination of ‘gender identity’ from human rights law, and it is then possible to extrapolate from that, that the document would happily see all legal protections removed from trans people. This is particularly clear when, following a misapplication of the Yogyakarta Principles definition, the Declaration states that “the concept of ‘gender identity’ has enabled men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ to assert, in law, policies, and practice, that they are members of the category of women, which is a category based upon sex.” "

Yeah they don't call for the elimination of trans people then do they

So you’re saying that elimination is not what the declaration says but someone’s interpretation of it? Err…. Mate. Seriously.

Roles of misogyny so far in this thread, with this in particular being number 1:

Women are responsible for what men do.

Women saying no to men is a hate crime.

Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.

Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.

😂😂😂
You’re kind of new here, aren’t you!

Oh, and when the women in your choir say they’re happy for you to use the women’s toilet, just consider what would happen to them if they said no?

I feel sorry for them.

The "someone" is a Human Rights lawyer. Read it, or don't - you're welcome to stay safe in your ignorance, but this thread is about you scratching your heads about why the whole country isn't joining in with your performative cruelty and victory laps.

Because lawyers are never biased or politically motivated especially not human rights ones !!

He's been around for quite a while I think. Doggedly mansplaining that we're wrong, bigoted, evil, right wing shills and/or left wing atheists depending on the day etc etc etc.

Quite useful as a way to explain and demonstrate to the lurkers, though.

Also, like he ever actually asked before using the toilet. Not a damn chance.

Exactly. I mean. I can think of 4 off the top of my head who are not exactly err… unbiased in these matters. Bundles, foxes judges wigs and bobble hats spring to mind. I bet it was one of those.

Carry on shooting the messenger then, and wondering why seemingly reasonable people keep disagreeing with you, while all the rich egomaniacs love you.

He’s been around a while, yet he still suggests the women on this board are Trump-adjacent far-righters???

My only conclusion is that he must have a very shallow learning curve

He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed bless him. Mind you it does give me hope if this in the intellectual level of the TRA.

What's left me disheartened is the realisation that many people and organisations don't really think that women should have sex-based rights. We can have 'gender' based rights, so long as we are nice and share them with the men.

Interestingly, in my experience, the SC ruling has made the topic more widely discussed, and I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how many people, quiet until now, are very strongly in favour of the decision.

Unfortunately, those who aren’t are generally wailing and sulking rather than thinking about how to legally address any issues they have. And some are sulking in a very loud and aggressive manner The scale of that pushback is quite disturbing for lots of people, and not for the reasons you suggest