The words that have been pulled over your eyes

[FlirtsWithRhinos]

I initially wrote this as a reply to a thread in relationships, but rather than derail the thread I decided to post it in FWR as a thread in its own right about a common accusation made against gender critical feminists.

It is a response to the claim that the only people who object to the word "cis" are people who deny the existence of trans women, and that such people are transphobes.

"Transphobe", like "trans woman" and indeed "cis woman", are just the words trans activists use to hide what is really going on.

These words exist to hide one simple truth: Trans women are not, in any objective, real way, in any way outside their own heads, in any way that is real to anyone else, any closer to being a woman than any other man is.

"Trans women" in reality are just men who for some reason feel compelled (or sometimes just really want ) to adopt a cross-sex persona playing out whatever their idea of what a woman is.

The words exist to make it sound like a reasonable thing when such men demand that their wives, children, friends and family, colleagues, officials, all of society pretend they are women, let them enter private spaces for women, let them touch or counsel women in roles reserved for women, let them take prizes for women, let them speak for women.

Because we'd never accept that as ok from men. But it's ok for trans women, and if it's not ok that's transphobia.

And we'd never say women in general are more privileged and powerful than men, but call the men trans women and the women cis women and suddenly everyone nods along. And if they don't it's transphobia.

But I don't believe the thing that makes men and women different is our minds. And without that belief, the whole thing falls apart.

No effort required.

It's not their genitals we are concerned about, its their sex.

If you think sex is just about genitals, I direct you to the rest of the site, which might inform you about the consequences of being born female.

Circumferences, I'm sorry to hear about your experiences.

It's quite chilling that up until around ten years ago transvestic fetishism was well recognised as a paraphilia that was a red flag for abusive behaviour, but now ... well, we are not allowed to say that. Which means, what? Women and girls are more vulnerable.

There's a thread on X from a homicide cop in the States talking about how all the training suddenly changed.

They can indeed go fuck themselves.

I'm sorry for your experiences, but in terms of what AGP men are like, it doesn't surprise me.

Men with AGP fetishise women's subordination. Many of them are completely upfront about it. That's what they get off on.

Pushing your boundaries would be all part of it.

I'm really sorry. Some men are fuckers.

It was plainly there in the text of the SC ruling

I completely agree.

It's even more daft when, often, the very men who complain that that's not the case, are the very men who tell everybody that they are trans!

The possibiity of it was in the text. Yet, funnily enough, it hasn't happened yet. Supposedly, a butch woman was challenged. Supposedly, a woman who had a double mastectomy was challenged. Yet there are no accounts yet of a trans man (let alone several of them) being challenged in the ladies' and forbidden to use the gents' thus left with nowhere to go.

@NoKnittingAllowed

Sadly, despite the SC ruling, the reality is that TiMs are blatantly ignoring the ruling.

Last week I was on a 3-day course which had 25 participants, all teachers (primary and secondary). The majority were women (18) with 6 men and 1 TiM. We were all staying at the venue so had all meals together and spent all of the 3 days in the conference area of the hotel. The TiM was very, very obviously male even with his dress and makeup. He was well over 6’ tall and spent much of the course banging on about how he has been on ‘my personal journey’ and his
‘lived experience’. The course facilitators LITERALLY tied themselves up in knots to agree with every single thing he said and to gush about how ‘insane’ and ‘cruel’ the SC ruling was. It was frankly uncomfortable for most of us to witness.

And of course he/she was ‘absolutely welcome’ to use whichever facilities he/she wished to…which was the female toilets and female changing rooms and showers in the hotel gym!

Nobody said a word - as we would have been excluded from the course (it was an NEU Workplace Rep training course - the teaching unions are FULLY captured and have made their stance very clear since the ruling).

I don’t think for a second that trans activists (or at least TiMs) will pay any heed to the ruling. And as these people are in fact men, and usually huge (I’ve never met or seen a petite one!) women will continue to be too afraid to call them out.

Been discussed many times, and explained, it's not the omg horror you're painting it.

The ruling discusses that in SOME situations (the paragraph is within the context of a rape crisis centre) it may be sufficiently distressing and alarming for women to be with people who have chosen to look outwardly significantly like men to prevent or impact on their use of a facility, and in that case it is reasonable to require those women with trans identities to use an alternative third space provided.

Why is this not wholly reasonable and sensible?

Bloody brilliant post OP!

First response talks about genitals 😕

Weird AF.

If it was plainly there you can link to it then.

Isn't this the same clause that some argued, prior to the Supreme Court ruling, only had very limited application?

Now apparently it applies in all cases?

Boundary-pushing creeps are horrendous - I'm so sorry. 🚩

Only for dramatic purposes.

If you think men who push women's boundaries are creeps, does that mean that you would not use a woman's facility, butterfly?

'221. There is nothing in the wording of this provision to indicate that paragraph 28 was directed specifically at those holding a GRC, nor is there any basis for concluding that this is its likely context as the Inner House suggested at para 56. (The example given in the explanatory notes at para 740 also does not distinguish between transexual people with a GRC and those without: “A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful”).

We can see nothing to support the Inner House’s conclusion that “the importance of this paragraph is that it provides the only basis upon which a person might be permitted to exclude a person with a GRC from services which are provided for their acquired sex”. Nor is the EHRC correct to assert that paragraph 28 is redundant on a biological interpretation of sex. On the contrary, if sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status.

Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception. '

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042

My bold, and I've added some paragraph breaks for ease of reading.

This is an excellent point.

Yes… I’m glad you agree on that. I mean, men pushing women’s boundaries to encroach on their language, spaces, sports and calling them names, threatening them and assaulting them come very definitely into that category don’t you agree?

Yep.
Someone hasn't read widely enough on this board, and has just popped in to let us know we're phobic oddballs. Or something.

I was travelling with a sizeable group of non-trans women the day after the ruling was made.

I put the question to them, and they told me off for even considering using male or unisex facilities rather than the female ones I've used since childhood.

I'm a woman and every woman I know has told me off for feeling afraid to use female facilities since the SC ruling.

I still avoid them where possible - I've spent so much of my life avoiding bigots wherever possible that all the gleeful talk of toilet patrols, and the many stories that have emerged since the SC ruling of so, so many non-trans women being challenged and harrassed due to pinging false positives is terrifying.

I have no interest in unnecessarily being in the presence of people who have made transvestigation their all-consuming special interest to the point where they'll accuse anyone of being trans (and have now, bizarrely, started accusing trans women of secretly not being trans) - it's annoying enough when it happens to any non-trans woman with short hair, above average height or who dares to be over the age of 40.

It's very comfortable for you having women 'tell you off' for not invading women's privacy, dignity etc and making it feel ok for you to do, but you know from being a MNetter that this is a problem and many women are not ok with this, are excluded, distressed, and it's led to assaults and worse.

The law thankfully means that it's no longer something negotiated between women and their Nigels and women have protections against it.

So I was talking to a transwoman the other day (shock horror yes I know a few). Anyway I decided to brave the subject of the SC ruling. Yep I went there, admittedly after a couple of drinks. We actually agreed on a number of points 1) one that it wasn't a bad thing for transwomen 2) it was being misrepresented and TRAs were being flaming ridiculous.

It was an interesting conversation all round and one that I think both of us felt was productive. Our mutual friends I think we slightly horrified at me going there because they were worried about where the conversation would go (I'm used to reading the room on this and knowing how far too push it). I did actually make the point about the fear of talking about difficult areas and actually how we should do more - weirdly me going there opened up the conversation for everyone which was much needed for all present for reasons I won't go into - there was a visible relief that I understood the ruling from the transwoman as he was clearly nearly as frustrated as me at all the bullshit over the subject!!!

What fascinating to me, is there is a definite fear and reluctance to talk about certain things AMONGST the trans community itself and the dominance of certain voices and certain political lines within that is definitely present. That needs to stop.

Some conversations are productive. Others not so much.

Non trans woman? Such a long winded way of say woman!

Why are TIMs and TRAs so invested in women's toilets? They seem to be the only ones talking about genital inspections as well. Weirdos!

Don't you think it's hypocritical to agree that men violating women's boundaries are creeps, when you personally use women's spaces?

Which you've just been told, by the Supreme Court of the country, is a direct violation of the equality act.

ButterflyHatched

You’re a transwoman. You’re male, always have been and always will be.

I’m not trying to be mean but truth matters.

…the many stories that have emerged since the SC ruling of so, so many non-trans women being challenged and harrassed due to pinging false positives is terrifying….

Provide just one (proven) incident otherwise it’s yet another TRA tale.