Am I naive in thinking that in a couple of years, if not sooner, this will all be behind us? A few court cases, people clear about the law, women's rights protected again??

[loveyouradvice]

And yes the noisy TRA far fewer in number and sidelined as the sad fringe that are left as others move on.....

Or do others think it will pan out differently??

Ah I see that just as we are failing to woman correctly by not giving butters and suggestions the agreement and you go girl affirmation they require, @Seethlaw is failing to trans properly

still as always butters and SP Stirling service on behalf of the GC cause is noted

He owes me at least two!

Sorry, it was me who’d already bagged the SC, JKR lent me the money, but I paid for the chainsaw myself.

An excellent example of a No True Scotsman fallacy is deciding that someone born with a male body is not a man if they have a certain 'constellation of (psychological/personality) data points'.

I actually read Seethlaws post as her having deep understanding of her situation. She knows she has made cosmetic only changes. She understands what it means and that there are limits to how society in general will accommodate the ‘lie’ (Seethlaw’s words).

Whereas it comes across from Hatched’s posts that Hatched cannot recognise that there are limits to how society in general will accommodate the ‘lie’. Or that Hatched understands that it is a ‘lie’ really. Because in the past Hatched has come up with different ways to define the word ‘woman’ to fully include male people with transgender identities. So that saying that Hatched is a ‘woman’ is not a lie to Hatched. So Hatched fully believes that they should be included in single sex provisions.

Seethlaw's way of dealing with the ‘lie’ is to acknowledge that it something that she is living but understands that she is not a man. There is not demand to be treated as a male person where provision’s are single sex. Or at all.

I have heard this type of pragmatism from several different people with transgender identities. And posters on MN tell us about their trans friends who live in this way. So I don’t believe it is rare. And I don’t believe it is unsustainable. I imagine to those people, acknowledging the material reality at least allows them to think clearly without the constant need to support an identity that relies solely on philosophical type theories such as post modernist theories.

It also allows for respectful discussion about the needs of female people, because Seethlaw is of course a female person and adds to the very wide range of female people who need female sex based provisions and policy.

By the way, I understand that Seethlaw will be able to explain this better and has in the past. I am adding an outsider’s perspective on why to me there is a difference in the posted content from the two posters that you are highlighting. You seem to be trying to say there are double standards and inconsistency at play.

As I posted upthread, suggestions, seethlaw saying "what harms trans people is being lied to. What harms trans people is being encouraged to live a lie"

is not the same as saying "trans people are living a lie".

You have repeated several times that they said the latter. Are you able to see the distinction?

I knew it would be JKR’s fault. That bloody woman.

I was so disappointed I had to cheer myself up by buying three nesting dog beds, a trombone and a rather fetching welder’s helmet.

Describing women as a certain constellation of (psychological/personality) data points really gives the game away - women are not seen as human by that description, therefore do not deserve human rights or indeed any other rights.

The above description sails very close the that used by the Nazis to justify the genocide they perpetrated.

I need a new irony meter too.

oh. I want a chainsaw! I have to get up on the ladder with my hand saw all the time and a chainsaw would make life so much easier! Like a warm knife through butter in comparison.

I’ll give you the heads up next time they’re in the middle aisle 😊

😂😂

The only data point needed is to think you're a woman. Cogito womanum ergo womana sum

I have a chainsaw on a long pole. It's not as useful as I thought, because a lot of things I need to cut at that height are branches that are too thick for loppers, but they are also too thin and wobbly for a chainsaw - especially when they're too high to grab an end to help stabilise them.

For something like that, a survival saw extended with string on each end might be the one. Tie a little weight to one end and lob it over the branch.

I think technically 'cogito in modam femina', because butterfly isn't thinking of women at all.

This is very true. I also have to acknowledge that I do not have the strength to use a long pole chainsaw from the ground holding it vertically. Just holding it for a period would be too much. A quick lop, fine. A heavier trunk or an all over trim - I would probably need a belt to take the weight, which I don't have. I have a ladder though.

We have an electric hedge trimmer on a pole and it is too heavy for me after a few minutes.

Oh, yes - that would certainly work for some of them. Not so much the hedge - anything lobbed in there will never be seen again - but it should solve most of the willow problem.

I see we're busy lovebombing vulnerable trans people who are willing to sacrifice their dignity for the sake of a head pat.

It is a disturbingly effective tactic, as is evidenced here - it buys a brief sliver of breathing room. Isn't it lovely to not face wall to wall hostility? Isn't it lovely to feel the microscope lift away from your every action?

It's ultimately self-defeating, however - as we see regularly with prominent trans people who alienate their own community and publicly humiliate themselves over and over again trying to contort themselves to fit within humiliating and dehumanising constraints.

There will always be a point where whatever you do or whatever you are is not enough. Where whatever you are ordered to sacrifice in order to remain 'one of the good ones' finally presents a line you will not cross.

You've sacrificed so much for a quiet life already. It would all be in vain if you refused now - you've already alienated your own community and driven friends and family away. Where would you even go? Who would you have left?

They'll keep going, though, and you'll have to make a choice between crushing all that you are down even further and living even more pathetically, or finally turning back and trying to reconstruct the ruins of your life.

That's the point. You are supposed to suffer. You are supposed to beg for scraps and plead and know precisely where you stand at all times, living in constant fear that they'll change the goalposts on you again.

And they will. Because nothing will ever be enough.

The sooner you realise this and stop chasing the impossibility of approval, the less damage you will do to yourself overall.

Mmmm my wife is a hand surgeon - she would advise that chainsaws and ladders are a fairly lethal combination! Your contributions on here are too full of common sense and clarity to have you suddenly vanish in a tangle of ladders and whirling chains… 😀

Goodness what a lot of words to argue that having no consideration for others is the correct way to live

Yes I was hoping someone actually knew Latin rather than just chucking a couple random endings on woman and smushing them in

Do you know what brand of hedgetrimmer on a stick, @Helleofabore? That's something on my shopping list, and I'm trying to rule.out heavy ones for exactly that reason.

I will check and get back to you. It does a great job though. It is used for Yew, bay, light holly trims and tall Privet.

Tall privet is my primary problem, so I'll put up with weight if it can deal.with that!

That does seem tough. I do sympathize. However, your diagnosis of the etiology of your distress at how things have turned out is off-beam.

You've successfully (at least in your own mind) pretended to be female for a good while; now matters outside your control seem likely to put pressure on this pretence, you are (naturally) upset by this turn of events.

But the court ruling wasn't "arbitrary" (leave aside your "funded by ..." and "army of ...": that's just (misjudged) anger at what's happened). The court ruling explained what the law always was - what the Equality Act had to mean regarding "man" and "woman" and so on if it was to make sense at all. But why was the court called upon so to rule?

Your pretence, and that of others in similar circumstance, used to be winked at by the rest of us. Now attitudes have hardened, possibly to your detriment. Why this hardening of attitude? Why should we suddenly wish to insist on the fact (and it is, after all, just that: a fact) that you are, as you have always been, a man?

-- Not a sudden outbreak of hatred at difference, or some sort of phobia: no, rather it's been that societal acceptance of the pretence in question has been weaponised by bad actors - to the severe detriment of a cohort of children, in particular, and in attacks on the rights of women.

The blame for your current distress needs to be laid at the door of these bad actors, and not the women whose hard-won rights are under attack, or those who care about the welfare of children.

You may well not be one of those bad people (we can't really tell). So, I'm conditionally sympathetic.

But lay the blame for your predicament where it's due. Not the women of Mumsnet; more the TRA's of ... well, wherever, I dunno. (SNP? Reddit? Stonewall? Sussex University? ...)

That's nice dear.