STOP MIS GENDERING ME JUST SAY SHE

[RogueFemale]

In case anyone has missed this prize example of a mentally ill adult male exhibiting trans entitlement.

And it has nothing to do with being gay, in fact some TRA rhetoric is extremely homophobic. For eg TRA Juno Dawson writing in a gay man’s magazine that gay men were just failed “trans women”.

Having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment doesn't mean anyone is treated as the opposite sex for the purposes of the Equality Act.

A male with the PC of GR remains male for the purposes of single sex spaces and services even if he has a GRC saying female

'shriek'

Oh. Is it you, again?

trans is a PROTECTED LEGAL STATUS in the UK

Since when, having a GRC means you're protected from discrimination but most 'trans' are just selfIDing genderists, and the UK doesn't have SelfID so not a PROTECTED LEGAL STATUS in the UK.

But thanks for playing.

It would be quite depressing if there was more than one person who constantly came on here to deprecate women's speech with these terms, but I suppose it's likely.

@Ereshkigalangcleg oh dear, further inadvertent muddying of the waters. No I wasn't comparing it to being gay, or implicating gayness, in any way whatsoever other than to use it an example of peoples prejudices.

So that homophobia is A OK is it? Because it doesn’t suit your agenda? Oh dear.

@WrongKindOfFeminist .. i'm not sure but I suspect not.. I don't ever remember using the word shriek in any meaningful way on MN before. Any more than I am a "banger-on-er"

@Seethlaw I don't disagree with that at all l. Women's rights should continue to exist and grow independently of the recognition of trans issues. Although I suspect the funding for an adequate amount of gender-neutral toilets to exist alongside ladies and gents toilets has a long way to go..

Just to note, you don’t need a GRC to claim the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, you merely have to have undertaken a process or part of a process to “reassign your sex by changing physiological or other aspects of sex”. So anyone who has “transitioned” can claim discrimination in the workplace on those grounds if treated poorly. However, this does not extend to being able to use spaces intended for the use of the opposite sex.

Indeed, if for no other reason that nobody's campaigning for it...

The poster also doesn’t seem to understand the significance of Forstater v CGD. We are absolutely ok to have the opinion that biological sex is immutable and more important than a person’s personal identity.

And we can’t be discriminated against or harassed on that basis.

Detectivedouche. Lets look at the evidence.

my factual observation that the 'middle class MN collective' freak out about trans issues
Ok. What is a fact? Its something that can be quantified and evidence given for. This sentence is your opinion based on posts as there is no data from which you can quantify this assertion from. Why? Because you don't work for MN and have access to any of their data on their users, particularly the users for whom this issue is most concerning.
Indeed, many of the grass roots groups who picked up on trans issues negatively impacting on women in the Uk were firmly left wing working class womens groups.

The Mumsnet MAJORITY get very.. aeriated.. at the fact that being trans is a PROTECTED LEGAL STATUS in the UK.. that's a fact..
Yes this is true. But the supreme court ruling also reflects that the Equality Act requires the observation of sex precisely to identify and protect women, gay people AND transpeople. Without observation of SEX there is no legal protection in law in the UK for transpeople. They need their sex observed at birth to have these legal protections.

doesn't matter how much they shriek on about birth gender being set in stone.
Detective, the facts are that birth gender is not a thing. Its birth sex. Sex and gender are not the same thing. And good detective knows that grasping the details are essential in making any case or argument. Conflation of ideas is poor methodology and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It's THAT opinion that is not legally recognised anymore..
Could you please point me to the legislation and court ruling that details this? We know that belief in sex is protected in law by numerous legal apparatus

like these opinions are going to reverse the legal status that now exists!
See above

It baffles me.
Learn a bit more about how the law works then.

I guess people need an outlet for their prejudices and sadly, it's here. Even though it won't make a jot of difference! It reminds me of when people used to get away with being so openly prejudiced against gayness.
The SC ruled that a failure to observe sex, in favour of gender undermined the Equality Act so much it created a situation where it was effectively homophobic. Hence why they ruled that sex must mean biological sex.

Being trans is not being gay.

Some people are gay - live with it. Similarly, some people are trans.. so folk better learn to live with THAT too.. or at least their own discomfort about it. Preferably quietly
References here to reframe your trauma and women have all the rights they need. The right to remind silent....

Ah, well. Misogyny is hardly uncommon.

trans is a PROTECTED LEGAL STATUS in the UK

The confusion over this is down to people wrongly thinking (and gender activists wrongly claiming) that the protections and rights afforded on the basis of "gender reassignment" are about trans people having a right to be treated as/given the right of the opposite sex.

They are not about that. No one has a right to access spaces, services etc. of a category they don't belong to. If you are male, you don't have a right to stuff that's for females just because you identify as or claim to be female. If you're male, you cannot be female. Just as if you are not disabled you don't have a right to a disabled parking space or to be in the paralympics, and if you are white you don't have a right to a scholarship or award that is for black people, and if you're 25 you cannot get your pension by announcing you're 70.

The rights and protections you do get under "gender reassignment" are the same as what everyone else gets, e.g. you shouldn't be discriminated against when it comes to getting a council house or a promotion etc. on the basis of being trans.

However, discrimination is legal in some circumstances on the basis of things like sex, disability, age, belief etc, when they are relevant. So for example if you are male you can be excluded from a service, group or space that is female-only. There are groups, awards and services that are for trans people and you can understand that they exclude people who aren't in that category, right? Then you can understand that other protected characteristics, like being female, can have the same.

If protected status for gender reassignment gave you the right to claim the rights of the opposite sex, which a human cannot be, that would in itself be discrimination because it would be discriminating against people who want to claim an age, disability, ethnicity etc that they do not have. We don't allow that so why should it be allowed with sex?

Dear God the WHINING

A friend of mine recently told me that AI has no place in law anytime soon.

He works for a law firm. They are having to unravel the consequences of a junior who used AI to give legal advice at the moment.

As he pointed out, AI has a problem - garbage in, garbage out. Most of the information on the legalities of gender reassignment have been collected from sources which are not legally reputable. They are often plainly wrong (stonewall law hasn't helped here) or completely lacking in nuance.

When it has come to actual legal cases with actual lawyers, this has been shown up well by the incompetence of HR departments who used Google for their legal advice and not their own in house legal department who may well have had something very different to say on matters.

It's also shown up the flimsy and often shockingly bad understanding of the law.

And very few people have been willing to action the implications of the SC ruling citing that 'well we haven't had the guidance yet' as if the law has actually changed and they aren't legally liable for any breach of the law before the guidance come into place. Worst still we even have public bodies and private bodies actively saying they intend to ignore the law.

Unfortunately this is only likely to result in more legal cases and what will happen if we have too many of these is insurers are going to start getting pissy with their employer legal coverage for any organisation which fails to knowingly and willingly breach the law. At some point the weight of this will fall through.

There is no way the law can actually be changed to remove the rights of women and gay people by removing biological sex from the legal framework without going through parliament and getting the support of enough MPs. All of whom know that unless they live in a student heavy constituency they are toast if they try that shit on too much.

It's amusing to see the squeals of 'detectives' who always get it wrong. It's comical in its repetition.

No need for she. You and I both know he's a man

Yes, but as I said before - mental health workers agreeing with a patient that he is a napoleon so they can calm him down is not exactly affirming. It just taking the edge of the situation so it can be easier to deal with.

Totally agree though that this kind of tantrum is a result of suddenly having to deal with the reality and being outside of the "ally" bubble where everyone panders to his whims.

The protection means:

If a man claims he has a transgender status, he should not be treated less favourably than any other man.

Unfortunately this is only likely to result in more legal cases and what will happen if we have too many of these is insurers are going to start getting pissy with their employer legal coverage for any organisation which fails to knowingly and willingly breach the law.

Yes and the same with sporting bodies, education and health authorities, prison services and providers of gender-"affirming" "care" itself. They will be forced back into a rational, sex-acknowledging, less harmful position, not because it's right, or because they finally get it, but because they'll be advised that they'll get sued to shit and it will cost them too much money.

Yes, but as I said before - mental health workers agreeing with a patient that he is a napoleon so they can calm him down is not exactly affirming. It just taking the edge of the situation so it can be easier to deal with.

I do get this but the stakes are less high. Napoleon isn't around and there isn't any harm or loss of safety to him caused by agreeing someone else is him. Plus this happens in a context where society agree the person is mentally unwell and deluded.

If we saw believing or claiming that you are the opposite sex in the same way, it would be more reasonable.

That was, I think, the first BBC article I ever complained about.
It must have been me who got them to make it absolutely crystal clear that he's a man (heavy sarcasm).
And here we are in 2026 with still dozens of other violent or paedophilic men the BBC has failed to correctly sex, or even tell us they identify as 'transgender'.

This video made me feel so, so deeply sad.

I don't know what the solutions are for someone who has this much trouble navigating life.

But I could only be comfortable with myself if I were to say "I hope you find what you need to live in peace."