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?

Quote the exact text of the Declaration where it says this. You may be surprised by what you find.

Exactly. Like my very woo friend who wants to be kind but has just confessed that she really wouldn't want to share a changing room with her other friend's new 'wife'. My mum, who's not wanting to make her very sweet TIM acquaintance sad but wants to talk third spaces because she can also see that other women's consent can't be given away on their behalf.

Indeed. A quick read of numerous threads on here reveals hundreds of women finally feeling able to express their resentment at men in their changing rooms., their children being gaslit in schools and all the young pregnant women bitterly resenting being faced with the dehumanising removal of the language of women and mothers in maternity care.
All pushed for by Stonewall and the other anti women trans lobby groups.

Obviously I don't have an objective view on what is being discussed, I can only observe what I'm seeing in media, and how it's being received. Plenty of the usual transphobic talking-heads are expressing the same consternation as this thread. Sharon Davies, James Esses, Glinner, Posie Parker and even Rowling aren't talking about "no-one is trying to eliminate you". Far from it. The teeth are out and the blood is up.

Exactly. The elimination of the undefined and undefinable “gender identity” even when coupled with the elimination of all rights from those who claim they have one STILL doesn’t equate to the elimination of people.

They will still exist and still be moaning that the world is no longer pandering to their every whim, long after women have fully regained their rights.

When i signed up to this site about 6 years ago you were still pretending to not hate "real" transsexuals, and you were arguing about whether Brietbart was a reputable news source because, like any right-wing outreach, it spoke about trans people with the words you wanted to hear.

I've watched this place be radicalised. Shame, this is where I discovered the "Bumbo", for which I remain grateful

Nobody here is anti-trans. It may be that you are simply misogynistic, paranoid and desperate to remove our rights.

Read this thread and see.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5326486-thank-you-from-a-trans-lurker

Well if you hate it that much and it’s such an awful site, why are you here? I avoid Reddit because of the sexism, misogyny and pure hatred of women, but I accept that is what that site is like. Why would I upset myself by going on there?

The difference being that you’d probably be removed from Reddit. Because this site, for all its rules, is actually fair and allows discussion from both sides.

Well done for trying to mansplain feminism to me, but you're talking absolute havers, pal.

Hold on, I thought we were leftie atheists? @MadBadDaddy are we back to being religious conservatives now? I’m having an identity crisis here.

Did you know, women can have their existing legal protections enforced and not suffer all the hells of men in their spaces, and not one single man will vanish in a puff of smoke as a result. Not one.

Isn't that nice?

It didn't take too long to unravel. This person does not know us or our community at all. He's got the same misconception of what "self ID" is that you all have. What he claims as "inevitable" doesn't even make sense. No bills passed. What "circus"?

"I am sincerely very sorry that the trans rights movement has been co-opted by aggressive MRA's."
It was inevitable. Once you had the GRA in place, with the GRC being given to pretty much anyone who wants it, it was inevitable that self-ID would follow and from there, well, the whole circus that's happened. I've never been so thankful that my country is not as woke, and that there's still a legal barrier to getting one's official sex marker changed (it's not that hard to get over it, but you have to want it).
"I still think about the people with gender dysphoria and about how much harm has been done to them by people who claimed to speak for them."
They don't count, or barely. Anyone who insists on gender dysphoria being linked to trans identity is vilified in the community. Just like trans men, people with gender dysphoria are only trotted out when useful in an argument, nothing more.

So are you saying that person is not trans? Why? Because he doesn’t agree with you?

The teeth are out and the blood is up.

Goodness. How frightfully hyperbolic.

https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-full-text/

'Article 7 of the CEDAW affirms the importance of measures to eliminate discrimination against women in political and public life'

That's the only instance of 'eliminate' I could find.

the irony

So you'd like this SC judgment to just.... magically disappear, for women's existing legal protections to be destroyed, and to pop back to women being raped, assaulted, harassed, strip searched by men, made to undress in front of men, lose all access to resources if they cannot use a mixed sex provision including help with rapes or escaping a life threatening relationship, yada yada

You were all good with that?

Nobody much wanted a GRC. In over twenty years only just under 8,500 have been issued. It would be interesting to know how many have been issued to males & how many to females.

So full of hate, GC 'feminists' will not be satisfied until they have driven the tiny trans community into the ground. Then where will all the hate go? I dread to think who will next be in your sights.

Women will continue to be raped, assaulted, harassed and stripsearched by men, no matter how hard you grind trans people into the dirt.

Doing the rounds on Twitter at the moment - "Why would a rapist pretend to be trans in a society that treats rapists better than trans women?"

The SC ruling has enabled even closer scrutiny of women's bodies, as the witch-hunt gets into gear. It's like Section 28 all over again, when The Sun ran "how to spot a poofter" articles.

The SC ruling has not made anyone safer.

So, @MadBadDaddy when you said a few pages back that

[living as a woman is] the established treatment for Gender Dysphoria, and it's very effective

What did you mean? In what way could such treatment be undertaken by one man with gender dysphoria without any involvement of biological women as people who would be required to go along with and support your “treatment” regardless of their beliefs and its effect on them?

What does “living as a woman” mean?

We plan to hate on little kittens and bunny rabbits, of course. Once we have “ground all trans people into the dirt”.

Hon, the evidence and the court cases for what happened to women by trans identified men is in the public domain.

So basically yes, you're saying you're fine with that for women.

Nuff said.

<Hands out another male supremacism sticker>

Those are very interesting and valid questions, suggesting honest curiosity, and which I'm not going to touch with a stick here. Messages are open though.