"A woman who is trans"

[AllThisFuss]

I've been noticing this terminology creeping in. Just thought I might highlight it, so we can keep up to date with their ever-changing attempts to control language and muddy the waters. Have you seen any in the wild?

IndiaWilloughby
‪@indiawilloughby.bsky.social‬
Not a mention of the woman who’s trans, who did nothing wrong. This ruling is in direct conflict with the Gender Recognition Act. How is this happening? It is wrong on every level, and will be used to push trans people even further out of society and into danger

Whatever the decision I’ll be relieved when the GLP v EHRC comes back so we finally have a definitive precedent

Even if it's not what you want it to be?

I’ll obviously be disappointed and not surprised if GLP lose, but either way I’ll be glad that it’s done. I’ve been carrying a lot of worry since the judgement so it’ll be good to understand whether we have to be excluded in all cases

LOL.

The access you were eroneously given was the result of misleading advice and biased standards from deep pocketed pressure groups.

They were wrong. Morally wrong and legally wrong.

Female people exist.

We are not interchangeable with whatever your self image of a "woman" is, and our rights, spaces, history and language all interconnect to what we are not what you want us to be, and you have no moral right to claim these things.

Get over it.

What do you mean by 'in all cases'?

Whether service providers must or can exclude us

I’ve been carrying a lot of worry

It's always about themselves. Never about the women, whose dignity, privacy and safety they couldn't care less about.

What is interesting for those reading along, is that this is a great example of a male person who knows that their presence in a female single sex provision, chooses still to impose his presence there.

A person who cannot be in any doubt, because they have just confirmed they have followed the cases about male people accessing female single sex provision where women have exposed their trauma at having a male person in that provision. There is no denying that they understand some female people will be distressed at his presence.

What term would apply to such a male person? I can think of a few that refer to a male deliberately causing harm to female people.

Absolutely

Women are nothing more than service animals to them. Absolutely disgusting attitude.

From women's single sex resources where women are excluded and distressed by your presence?

Your 'win' to use those single sex spaces instead of mixed sex spaces would harm those women. You're ok with that?

You'd be fine in mixed sex facilities with the consenting women, why do you have to take away women's access, privacy, dignity and safety to meet your need? Why do you matter but they don't?

You're demonstrating exactly why women need cast iron protections in law. It's because of men who only ever see women as resources they are entitled to. I'm not sure why you'd be posting like this in a women's space, focused on those women you're happy to harm and exclude with your presence, and are hoping to overturn their rights in law. to your own benefit. I wonder what you're getting out of this.

Well I don't. I know. Sadly.

A....

So from this ^ I conclude you do break the social contract

... and use what should be women only single sex spaces.

Definitive precedent you nit wit is the SUPREME COURT RULING IN FOR WOMEN SCOTLAND.

which no inferior court can overturn.

There's a phrase I keep trying to remember. Rag biting? Rae batting? Age bitting? Tip of my tongue.

Nope

Organisations made changes to provide lawful services and not unlawfull discriminate on the basis of sex.

Who is "they"

It's true.

But it's also opening a door to highlight the total lack of any substance behind the daft TWAW slogans, and the sleight of language being used to emotionally blackmail women into pretending these men are meaningfully like us in ways other men are not.

So I'm happy to take the bait off the hook and swim where I want with it.

Proving the case while claiming its not happening....

yes. But it is a great demonstration of male supremacy and misogyny that is the type to pique interest.

So you’re a female claiming a male identity. Gotcha. I mean, you can’t be thinking a male can be a woman

But you can’t become a woman by being trans. At best you could become a non cis man to use their language, or a man with a trans identity.

I wonder when the GLP v EHRC will be concluded.

On googling I couldn’t see but was pleased to see that Sex Matters have been included with submissions.

I’m hoping you might be able to answer this because I’ve always wondered. From my perspective it seems like you’re trying to remove rights from transsexual people, and from your perspective you think I’m trying to remove women’s rights.

Why do you think your rights trump my rights?

Transexuals already have protected rights not to be discriminated in employment and services just like every other protected characteristic’s

transexuals have never, not ever had the right to be recognised as the oppisite biological sex as a fact rather than a legal fiction.

and transexuals have never had the right to use opposite sex services.

TRA’s. Have stretched peoples tolerance to breaking point.

You are claiming "rights" that are not actually rights, but wishes - the wish to use opposite-sex facilities. This has never been your "right," so it can't be removed, only corrected.

and transexuals have never had the right to use opposite sex services
I don’t know if that’s actually true. I think there is pre-Equality Act case law that actually supported our access. IIRC the case Croft said there is a point where we should be allowed access to opposite sex spaces.

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

The thing you understand a woman to be is not - cannot - be the same thing as being a biological female.

So trying to appropriate the name, history, rights and opportunities of female people because you are a trans woman makes no sense.

If your definition of the word woman is the right one, then being a woman is nothing to do with being female and female-specific rights and provisions are none of your business.

And if my definition of the word woman is the right one, then being a woman is entirely to do with being female, and female-specific rights and provisions are still none of your business.

The only reason anyone gets confused about this is the weasel use of the word woman to mean something different to what it always did in culture, society, history and law, while insisting this new definition gives you rights over what was created by and for the people who met the old meaning.

The way out of this is simply to recognize that the thing you have labelled "womanhood" is a different thing to the thing female people are, stop trying to take by pressure and emotional manipulation what in reality was never anything to do with your "womanhood" anyway, and start to build something honest for yourselves and who you are instead.