Behind the ruling: how ‘Sex Matters’ is shaping UK policy on trans rights

[BeeSouriante]

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/home-affairs/behind-the-ruling-how-sex-matters-is-shaping-uk-policy-on-trans-rights/

Sadly this is the first article in the UK media that has recognised the connections between the gender critical ideology movement (GCIM) and religious right orgs (mostly Heritage and the ADF), despite it being recognised and acknowledged by orgs and media in Europe and the US.

"The organisation’s true agenda is, I believe, best described as ‘eliminationist’: seeking through legislative bans, data policies, and the curtailing of gender-affirming care to relegate trans people in life and law to their sex at birth and make transitioning so difficult, dangerous or pointless as to functionally eliminate trans people from public life and society"

Spending time on this forum, it's quite clear that many people in the GCIM are eliminationist in their aims (just a glance at the 'do you support transitioning' thread is very eye-opening in this respect).

Look, nobody at your friend’s work is in any doubt about their trans ness. They are just polite people who don’t want any trouble so they go along with the pretence.

The main question that needs to be asked of the EHRC is why their original guidance was so bloody wrong in the first place, leading effectively to de facto self ID despite it never being the law. Or is listening to lobby groups ok when they’re Stonewall?

Thank you.

Thanks for reminding me that I intend to increase my direct debit to them for their good work.

You mean like Stonewall? Back when Stonewall had a biased ear at the EHRC?

Glad you recognise the ‘eliminationist’ ambitions of Stonewall! Maybe we can agree on somethings on this thread after all.

Or is it finally dawning on you that you lack the depth of knowledge to host threads where you feel you are making positive examples that you think support your arguments well on this topic ? That your evidence and arguments seem to indicate issues that contradict your position.

It can't be that important if you can't be bothered to explain.

Good morning, @BeeSouriante

I look forward to reading your engagement with all the posters who addressed your arguments while you were sleeping on it. Otherwise, here, take a cookie for your top trolling.

I have nothing against trans people but I certainly would quite like to eliminate a movement that enables topless men with chemically created breasts to wave banners around that say Kill All Terfs.

'eliminationist's ' is that the new thing?

Maybe you should sleep on it some more, because the last sleep didn't help.

Being pro women just means you are standing up for women's right's. If reality and science agree with us, that's just a bonus. 👍😁

Stop trying to make fetch happen. It’s never going to happen Gretchen

Snap! My first thought too.

Cor blimey

just chill out and use the gents. You’ll be fine

Since the Supreme Court ruling, I've come to realise that I have a problem with the very term "transition" itself, in that, erm, you can't. Nobody can transition from one sex to the other (yes, there are only two sexes). But you're not invisible, and you do exist (we can see and hear you loud and clear); you are, simply, still what you always were. What you wear, and whatever surgery you undertake, doesn't change that fact. 🤷‍♂️ HTH.

How frustrating. I opened this thread, thinking it might be about the ways that the Supreme Court judgment is finally starting to shift the agenda of some public institutions away from the warped politics and demands of gender identity and return to sanity.

Instead, it’s just another illogical accusation that we’re far right.

We are at a genuinely interesting point in history. If there really is an argument that “trans people” need special rights and protections, this is the moment when those should be put forward. We’ve had clarification that women’s sex based rights are still essential and in place and now is a crucial time for transactivists to present their logical case on how they can be protected in a world where sex-based rights exist.

They seem unable to put that rational case and there absolutely is one they could argue - they were almost there, back before 2015.

But instead they continue with their irrational demands and pretense that using the same spaces they used for many years is somehow an impossible imposition and that even if additional spaces are provided for those who truly struggle with using their designated space, that’s still somehow impossible.

OP, you say you have a friend who was considering telling colleagues about their sex. If your friend is a rational person, his or her colleagues will undoubtedly take this information as interesting and useful as it will prove there are rational and reasonable people who’ve transitioned.

It will help to stop the so-called “trans panic” which is a false premise, created by the extremists who are the most visible transactivists. They are the ones who are damaging your cause. This is the time for any rational transitioned people to say “not in my name” to those breaking the law and insisting on trampling women’s rights.

Why don’t you try it?

The religious far right and aggressive TRAs are the ones that have something in common - misogynistic men controlling and silencing women.
They both concern me.

From listening to them and reading their stuff I pretty much trust Sex Matters to shape UK policy in a reasonable way.

There is no "quiet part". It's all being said out loud. If you were shouting "no debate" with your fingers in your ears instead of listening then that's on you.

And paranoia is a natural result of not listening to what's actually being said.

Did you miss @GallantKumquat 's excellent post above?

Or are you just going to ignore the posts that don't suit your narrative?

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat nonsense, it still doesn't make it true.

Eg Stonewall wanting to remove women?!

there is no such word by the way as eliminationism - another made up word / concept

Gross.

Ignoring the posts which don’t suit Bee’s narrative would be par for the course. This poster is putting out a lot of pretty ridiculous statements (GC = right wing, McGuire was quite right (when he called women nazis) etc) but has, sadly, completely failed to engage in any actual debate.

@BeeSouriante Half the trans friends I have are busily leading normal lives without anyone being able to 'tell'.

You have absolutely ZERO way of knowing that no one can tell because you can't see into people's heads. People are polite/scared/uninterested etc etc.
It's comforting for you/your friends to tell yourselves that, though.

Anyway, what are the other half doing? No...actually, don't answer that.

People will have stupid views and god knows men will fail to see women as real people and to understand that women deserve rights and boundaries, and Bee is an example of that kind of man.

we can’t make him be not sexist and bonkers. All we can do is make sure his views are seen for the lunacy they are. Sex Matters are very good at that. I’m glad they exist

Humans can be classified in countless ways: by profession, income, age, allergies, eye colour, number of children, or even postcode. Some classifications align with how people see themselves, others don’t and being correctly classified can cause upset.

In some situations, a single category takes priority - often for practical reasons. For example, weight can determine rollercoaster access for safety purposes. This may conflict with someone's self-perception, especially if they believe other aspects, like their fitness or attractiveness, are being overlooked.

Navigating life successfully requires navigating the tension between practical labels and personal meaning. Transwomen find sex classification upsetting. There are many contexts where their sex is irrelevant, but in contexts where sex matters it can’t be overlooked. Attacking those who are highlighting where sex matters and suggesting they are seeking to eliminate trans people from being in society is nothing short of absurd. Denying trans people access to opposite sex essential provision would prevent them from being included in society in a dignified way IF alternative provision wasn’t being provided - but the law states it must be.

For what it’s worth, I am sympathetic to the upset this causes trans people and recognise that it cuts to the core of their identity.

If you genuinely want to support trans people, open your eyes to the fact that the law means single sex provision is for one sex only and that women advocating for this are motivated by the needs of females, not by a desire to harm transwomen. The power of this lie in silencing women who were fearful of the consequences of speaking up is diminishing, yet it’s power to make trans people wrongly feel hated and rejected is as strong as ever. Why don’t you direct your advocacy towards ensuring alternative provision for trans people is adequate in quality and number and that trans people can, where needed, access support to build resilience so they feel able to navigate a world where their identity won’t always align with how society is organised and how others perceive them.

Thankyou for this Kumquat.

This reasoning also misses the bit that I see time and again on this board, and highlighted in the SC ruling - that trans people shouldn’t be discriminated against for being trans

• in access to jobs/housing/benefits/ spaces and services
• that they should have access to evidence-based healthcare, and specifically need to be included in sex-based screening programmes (which changing their sex marker tends to obliterate)
• that appropriate toilet/changing facilities, services etc should be available for them in a way which does not impinge on the rights of other groups to single-sex facilities and services

Weird how so many people on this board think this - ie in some areas would argue for better treatment for trans people - but are still labelled transphobic (and ultra right wing) because they also believe in women’s rights 🙄

I think defining what the word woman means doesn’t need a huge amount of input. Just people who understand basic biology and mammalian evolution. No one has been eliminated, but we all now understand that our biological sex can’t be changed.