Guardian article by trans woman

[Arran2024]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/31/transgender-rights-ehrc-guidance-single-sex-spaces

Zero concern for the rights of women. For example bemoaning the fact that a women's group of over 25 members cannot include a trans woman even if the others want to. Well, what if they don't want to? The choice the Supreme Court had to make was binary - sex or gender ID. The author is FtM and is not remotely affected by men in women's spaces. Infuriating.

Yeah not going to give the article any clicks

Me neither - saw it was Freddy McConnell!

Me neither. ‘Gender recognition’ made a mockery of women’s rights, Freddy.🤷‍♀️

The thing is - if every woman in a walking group wants to include a transwoman who is actually going to stop them? There aren't going to be any inspections.

It's a complete red herring.

I guess it would be an issue if a non-TIM wanted to join and the group said no?

To expand - that non-TIM could bring a case for discrimination (see the WI thread elsewhere on this board).

ah Freddy I thought she'd been quiet for a while

yeah no, the SC is clear, sex is biological sex and frankly I'll not be listening to someone who solemnly promised to live as a man and then got pregnant - twice

What does she expect the EHRC to do? Publish guidance that ignores the law? This article is daft.

Yawn.

The article is by a transman. Nothing new or interesting.

"[...] cannot include a trans woman even if the others want to. What if they don't want to?" Did you even read the words you just put down or was it one word after another until it felt like you were making a point?

Ah yes, FC who made a documentary film about her transition which showed her getting her Gender Recognition Certificate entitling her to have her birth certificate re-issued showing her sex as male, to get which she must have made a written undertaking to live as a man for the rest of her life. A few days later she went to a fertility clinic to start the process of having fertility treatment so she could become pregnant. She has given birth twice now and went to court to try to get the right to be shown as Father instead of Mother on her children's birth certificates. Fortunately she failed. She also took to social media to claim that she wasn't told that having a double mastectomy (for gender-related reasons) would mean she couldn't breastfeed if she had a baby. That Freddie.

There is a link at the bottom of the article to submit a letter up to 300 words. Im mentally drafting a response that asks what rights have the trans community lost? Despite the reams and reams of comments Ive yet to see anything tangible. Lots of emotions.

Stonewall are responsible for giving bad advice on single sex spaces. It wasnt a trans right. They can now lobby for change and have discussions with stakeholders to agree the future. Because the authoritarian no debate approach has not worked.

What have they lost? How does this translate into the hyperbolic and catastrophic outcomes claimed?

Archive Link for people who don't want to give The Guardian clicks or comply with their "accept advertising and tracking cookies or pay" policy:
https://archive.is/XV2uc
@TrainedByCats @CompleteGinasaur

Many thanks, @RareGoalsVerge.

This line made me goggle:

"Systemic transphobia has captured our public institutions with terrifying speed."

Or, the recent acknowledgement that women have rights too, following more than a decade of institutional capture by trans lobbyists of government, NHS, sports, police, higher education, schools...

It's all me me me isn't it? Who would have thought that if a person had their genitals removed to pretend to be the opposite sex that it would cause problems, and leave them in some sort of no mans land, between male and female, legally i mean, who could predict that? 🙄

This is so chilling and disturbing.
I cant help but think that a personality or psychiatric disorder accounts for so much of the skewed logic or sense of entitlement.

Thanks !

Perhaps we could all write a response and educate the Guardian. But I see that any submission is only for consideration. 😬

The line that stood out for me was the opener - "The supreme court (sic) judgment on the application of the 2010 Equality Act has rendered the UK's system of legal gender recognition entirely hollow". Quite apart from the fact that surely a professional journalist should know that "Supreme Court" should be capitalised (one of my partner's pet names for was, in fact, "my little pedant"..), I laughed out loud at the blatant cheek of this - the "system of legal gender recognition" that McConnell mourns here was only ever an illusion conjured by Stonewall law and other appropriating activists, a mirage that the Supreme Court elucidation (not judgment) blew away like the tissue of lies that it was.

Freddy's attempt to change the legal definitions of "mother" and "father" would have affected many other laws, as Freddy's solicitor acknowledged. Such a change should never have been pushed through by one special interest group without a wider discussion of how it would affect everyone else. For example, it might have changed who would have presumed parental responsibility of a child born to unmarried parents. For this reason, I'm glad that Freddy's court case failed.

After reading the Caroline Dinenage comment on prescribing cross sex hormones to young people I found this. 😧

https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/caroline-dinenage/debate/2016-12-01/commons/commons-chamber/transgender-equality

In this case she hasn't had her genitals removed & has given birth twice. She has had her breasts removed.

They couldn't lawfully exclude the man. But the point is that in practical terms the women could include the men who say they're women if they want to.

Yeah. Fck off Freddie.
ps. No man in the history of time has ever been a mother.