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.

She’s not still banging on about the walking group, is she? Has no one done anything to upset her since ( because if not, she’s bloody lucky, I had a puncture last week).

This guidance, were it to become legally enshrined, would rob citizens, trans and otherwise, of the freedom to choose whom they associate with and to recognise others for who they truly are.

Freddy getting it back to front as usual.

It actually means that women have the freedom to choose to have women-only associations, spaces and sports, which Freddy wants to abolish.

It also means that we can recognise others as the sex they actually are and we don't have to pretend that Freddy was a man when she gave birth to her two children.

Mixed sex associations, spaces and sports will still exist and if Freddy and her friends want to play make-believe that they've changed sex they can still do that amongst themselves. They don't have to try to convert everyone else to their way of thinking like some sort of gender evangelists.

The tantrums from these entitled narcissists wanting the world to pretzel to accommodate their disordered thinking. The consequences of never previously having said no to the self obsessed, self interested groups are quite something to behold.

Are they related! I'm really struck by how similar they look in face shape and features.

No. Tbf this is what the Hampstead Ponds ladies' pool is trying - they have put signs up saying that it's for women including trans women and have come up with some sort of defence of their position, but I believe Sex Matters are trying to take them to court.

Anyway, the idea that a group could self select to allow trans women in is absolutely not ok.

Take football for example. Several women players have appeared in the media saying how much they love their trans ex players and wish they could still play. The trans players very much want to play too.

But what about the quieter women who don't agree. There is a good chance they would feel obliged to go along with a pro trans position, as we know what happens to women who don't support trans women. And they would be making a decision not just for themselves but for years to come.

This is why women's groups have to stick to biological sex.

I know, you'd think it would give them pause when they have to lie, twist and misrepresent things to try to make a point.

Still Freddy is not alone among Guardian journalists, trans and otherwise, in lacking the basic ability to think things through and present a coherent argument.

Freddie talks about trans identifying individuals using the 'correct' facilities.
Correct for whom then, Freddie?

Freddy is the same individual who made a legal declaration that she intended to live the rest of her life as a man in order to get a Gender Recognition Certificate making her legally male, and then almost immediately embarked on a planned cycle of fertility treatment in order to have her first child. She has since had a second child.

If she is so very clearly treating it all as a laugh, and in so doing committing perjury, why does she think that anybody should listen to her opinions or declarations now? How on earth are we to know whether she's saying something in her 'ad absurdum' parlour game character or seriously?

At least on Call My Bluff, the panellists would always hold up a sign saying 'Bluff' immediately after they'd asserted something silly and untrue, to show that it was just part of the game and they didn't actually believe it - and presumably would only say things that they did genuinely believe once the TV cameras stopped rolling.

I think the biggest wonder is that anybody would believe that somebody who would fight to falsify her own child's birth certificate and wilfully deny them a legal record of something as fundamental as who their own mother is would somehow care about a whole load of women who are complete strangers to her who want to preserve female-only spaces.

I don't think she's treating it as a laugh. I think she's high on her own supply. She's convinced herself that her and her fellow travellers' understanding of sex and gender is much more evolved and empowering than boring old obvious sex and now she's on a holy mission to convert society to a better way.

Once you get into that mindset, every person or group that tells you you are wrong is just taken as proof that you need to double down even harder on changing everyone's minds.

Agree, I think it becomes a channel for all these people’s energies, negative and positive. Displacement.

I did find it unrealistic that all these MPs had never spoken to a trans person before. I thought trans people were engaged in a campaign to get MPs on side. Maybe it's just the activists, the allies, or maybe what Frankie says is just plain wrong.

Also, why the fuck does everybody ignore that the Amnesty International intervention in the SC case was given by a trans person? Why oh why does nobody think of the nonbinaries, etc.

'For its part, the supreme court refused to hear any interventions from trans people before deciding on its recent, devastating ruling.'

Directly from the judgement:

(iv) Single characteristic associations and charities
229. Similarly, Schedule 16 paragraph 1 EA 2010 allows for an association to restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic (which would otherwise be unlawful discrimination in contravention of section 101(1)(b)). However, if sex means certificated sex, this exception from the sex discrimination provisions for single characteristic associations would not permit such associations with 25 members or more (see section 107(2) of the EA 2010 discussed above) to be limited to biological women. This is because, as we have said, a certificated sex definition of the protected characteristic of sex would include trans women with a GRC.
230. Nor would single-sex charities be able to use the exception in section 193, which allows them to restrict the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic in pursuance of a charitable instrument. So far as material, section 193 provides:
“(1) A person does not contravene this Act only by restricting the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic if— (a) the person acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and (b) the provision of the benefits is within subsection (2).

(2) The provision of benefits is within this subsection if it is— (a) a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or (b) for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic.”
231. Schedule 16 and section 193(1) plainly intend that single-sex associations and charities should be permitted to exist along with other single-characteristic associations. A certificated sex meaning applied to these exceptions would make it impossible for any women’s association or charity – including, for example, a mutual support association for women who are victims of male sexual violence, a lesbian social association, a breast-feeding support charity – to be set up or to pursue a dedicated purpose which is directed at the needs of biological females. To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex (or sexual orientation based on biological sex as we have discussed above).'

My bolding.

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

What they probably did not hear is that the EHRC’s interim guidance also says a women-only gardening club with more than 25 members will be legally required to exclude a trans woman, even if she’s legally a woman, and even if her fellow members want her there.

Surely they can include anyone they want in their gardening club.

The only thing they can't do is illegally discriminate against men and, having allowed some men to join the club, they can't have different terms of membership for men and women. This is basic civil rights.

No, maybe I framed it badly as 'having a laugh' - but, if anything, I was probably being too kind.

Maybe fraud, perjuror or liar might have been more accurate.

She can live her life however she wants; but when she starts legal cases to force obvious fiction to be acknowledged as fact - extending to fighting to falsify somebody else's important legal document proving their identity - that's grossly overstepping.

If she had just accepted that she likes to present in a stereotypically masculine way and be referred to as 'he' (by people who are willing) - but that she knows she is really female and thus wants to take advantage of that by getting pregnant and giving birth to a baby (presumably not whilst taking testosterone or other unnatural hormones that could harm the baby), I wouldn't quibble with her at all.

Yes, but in addition, the judgement points to the right to associate on the basis of biological sex:

' To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex (or sexual orientation based on biological sex as we have discussed above)'

"What they probably did not hear is that the EHRC’s interim guidance also says a women-only gardening club with more than 25 members will be legally required to exclude a trans woman, even if she’s legally a woman, and even if her fellow members want her there."

Having considered this I think that's correct (noting that of course doesn't prevent any transwomen from spending time with women in private or fewer than 25). The point is that it's legally a club with a specific membership criteria.

"Even if her fellow members want her there" isn't thought through. What does that even mean? What if one woman is looking for a male-free environment, perhaps because they have just escaped domestic abuse? What if two?

What if someone is new, escaping domestic abuse and wants to join a women's only club? Will the transwomen then be kicked out?

I appreciate it is unfortunate for those transwomen but perhaps they could join an LGBTQ club or a mixed club.

And also just to add, transwomen should not have been given the alleged "right" to join women's clubs in the first place. Many have threatened clubs (like the women's pool league) with legal action if they refuse to allow transwomen.

This is a litmus test for the country’s soul, wounded as it is, though not yet dead.

If ChatGPT was asked to write a mixed metaphor in overwrought hyperbole and quasi-religious anthropomorphism.

It's okay, Freddie. Countries don't have souls. And I don't think souls even get wounded, let alone deaded. Isn't that the whole point?

This is the woman who thinks she is a man and who has given birth to 2 children, and doubtless received all the maternity care and benefits which belong to mothers. If she is a man then she should have had none of them. And that would have been the situation had the SC decided that certificated sex was what counted.
Not a thought for women who don't want men in their groups and paces, not a thought for lesbians (though afaik she is one having a female partner) who have had their dating sites and their meetings trashed by men pretending to be lesbians. It's not she can't read the room - she is utterly deaf to any voice but her own and has not noticed the violence and vitriol thrown at women who have fought for women's rights (her rights).
Entitled and ignorant numpty.

To be fair, if Freddie is fighting to remove laws that prevent sex discrimination and force people into gender boxes, that was the way thinks worked for centuries. It's not difficult to point to people who, like Freddie, want to return to this way of life. Perhaps Freddie could join Reform?

It would be discrimination against men who were not trans - which is illegal.

Went to Primark today and the changing rooms on the ground floor say they are for women only (and we know that women = biological women, they don't have to say so to be challenged if they let a TiM in) and that there is a gender neutral one somewhere else (upstairs, I think). This may be progress. Doubtless Freddie thinks this is a loss of trans rights.😡

Apparently the tra position is that no employer would be so mean as to not give someone maternity pay for having a baby just because they are a "man". They want to remove sex as the determination and replace it with gender. Of course the Supreme Court decided the opposite and they cannot believe it - dragging us into the dark ages etc etc.

They will not rest until gender ID replaces sex.

All this campaigning to MPs is about making new laws which give them what they want, which can never be what we want.

Yes, ironic that a whole part of the Supreme Court judgement talked about the importance of retaining pregnancy and maternity protections for people like Freddie.