Well done to the Nurses who stood up for Women’s Rights

Galaxy

I think it is a form of abuse, both to the nurse and this man's victims, to make people describe him as she.
This compelled speech is a form of coercive control.

This compelled speach is a form of control ....

Which is the point of the whole movement.

If you can convince people of something so fundamentaly grounded in science and fact that men and women are interchangeable, how easy is it to control and influence other issues?

It is a political ideology camouflaged as a sociological/cultural difficulty.

It is the future generations who will suffer the most (that I worry about), if people don't keep protesting now.

Rosie51

The whole pronouns thing is absolutely coercive. This "my pronouns are......." is such a false narrative. My pronouns are the normal I, me, mine. Nobody speaks of themself using she, he, hers, his etc. That is just trying to control other people's speech and use of normal pronouns. As for the made up ones, how affected can you get?

In earlier days made up ones have definitely been coercive IME, particularly by younger users.
Trans changing their pronouns weekly or even daily and using their groupies to spy on and report back uses of either the grammatically correct pronoun or not their current choice of pronoun, then going to the teachers and crying transphobia resulting in a punishment of the offenders.
That was while Stonewall etc. were in power.

The whole pronouns thing is absolutely coercive. This "my pronouns are......." is such a false narrative. My pronouns are the normal I, me, mine. Nobody speaks of themself using she, he, hers, his etc. That is just trying to control other people's speech and use of normal pronouns. As for the made up ones, how affected can you get?

I think it is a form of abuse, both to the nurse and this man's victims, to make people describe him as she.
This compelled speech is a form of coercive control.

Thank goodness common sense prevailed and another nurse, Jennifer Melle, who I'm sure the NHS cannot afford to lose has been reinstated in her job, having been suspended after addressing convicted paedophile identifying as a woman as "Mr". Whilst she herself was racially abused by him.

She will be taking the trust to an employment tribunal in April claiming harassment, direct discrimination and indirect discrimination linked to her gender critical and evangelical Christian beliefs.

What a state of affairs to think this woman was suspended in the first place.

Maremia

If trans friendly facilities are provided, and they should be, in my opinion, then they have no valid argument about using women-only toilets.

Who could have foretold that women who have fought for equal rights under the law which they didn't previously have (I still remember having to get my then boyfriend's signature on a hire-purchase agreement, because even though I earned almost as much as him - I was a woman without that right), would one day have to fight men who would decide that they, too, could be women, if they chose.

Maremia

If trans friendly facilities are provided, and they should be, in my opinion, then they have no valid argument about using women-only toilets.

Absolutely!
That’s what they should have been fighting for all along.
Women would support that, providing the trans friendly doesn’t jut mean annexing female safe spaces.

But there are the Eddies, Indias, Dylans and Elliots, Emily Bs etc who will not be happy, and will probably make that clear by continuing to try and use female spaces.

If trans friendly facilities are provided, and they should be, in my opinion, then they have no valid argument about using women-only toilets.

Mollygo

What is the equality they’re talking about? What equality do they envisage without taking away women’s rights, which is what they really want?

E.g. Separate toilets for trans the same way that females have separate toilets?
I’m probably more in favour of that than TW have shown themselves to be.

Those who don’t want to reveal themselves as TW won’t be happy with that.
Those like Eddie and India wouldn’t like it because they want to use female facilities.

I think the term coercive agenda is really accurate.

The most important thing for TW is basically that they have somewhere they can go and pee - like the rest of us - in private.

Surely?

If there are separate toilets which they refuse to use because they insist on going into women-only facilities, then yes - the agenda is obvious.

What is the equality they’re talking about? What equality do they envisage without taking away women’s rights, which is what they really want?

E.g. Separate toilets for trans the same way that females have separate toilets?
I’m probably more in favour of that than TW have shown themselves to be.

Those who don’t want to reveal themselves as TW won’t be happy with that.
Those like Eddie and India wouldn’t like it because they want to use female facilities.

I think the term coercive agenda is really accurate.

Bridget Phillipson was backed by UNISON for deputy leader. UNISON are so pro trans it amounts to anti-women, despite women being the majority of their membership, about 75%. They don't back female single sex spaces excluding transwomen to remain single sex. She knows which side her bread is buttered.

I believe Bridget Phillipson has not rolled out guidance to businesses on the matter. I believe she has also been quoted as saying that the ruling is "trans exclusive" and claimed that it would prevent mothers from taking their young sons into changing rooms. Most swimming pools have had the policy of allowing boys up to 7 to be in the women's changing room with their mother. That was certainly the case when my children were young. I think she's prevaricating on the grounds that she doesn't personally agree with the judgement. So much for the party line, we must obey the letter of the law.

Has anything actually been implemented yet? Especially in the NHS?

There was a thread over on MN yesterday entitled "New trans equality civil servant at the Cabinet Office to focus on the "implications" of 2025's Supreme Court judgement" can't help thinking this government would backtrack wherever they could find the means to do so.

Maremia

'Coercive agenda' good phrase. Pretty much most of what is concerning.

Yes, a good description of what is happening too, Doodledog

Men coercively controlling women's safe spaces.

'Coercive agenda' good phrase. Pretty much most of what is concerning.

I don't think (and didn't suggest) that there was a golden age. I said that there are some transwomen who are not TRAs and do not want to dominate women. At one time they made up the majority, and generally preferred to be inconspicuous.

It was, IMO, when Stonewall got going and pushed the coercive agenda (insisting on declaring pronouns etc) that the 'time minority' suddenly became more numerous and it became more about making a point than about someone who thought he was a woman using the loo. The last thing the 'Hayleys' wanted was to be called out on their maleness, but Eddie and India appear to enjoy the fuss.

That's not an 'idea' of a golden age - it's an observation of how the politics have shifted.

There is nothing to suggest that a transwoman nurse would be in any way unsafe in the male changing rooms is there? Why wouldn't they change in the room that aligns with their sex, as they really should be cognisant of the basics, nobody in the history of the world has ever changed their sex.

And there is no way to know who means 'harm' and who does not.
Finding a safe place for trans people is a management issue. Not an issue for female staff.
If it is Government policy, that places be provided, then demand Government funding.

There is no genuine reason to go into a womans space as a man.

That's is an unfair comment, about folk who know transpeople who do and wish no harm.
However, I, like many of the Posters on this Thread, are against the pushy 'perverts' seeking to invade female spaces, for non genuine reasons.
Problem is, how to tell them apart?
For that reason, I prefer to go for female safety.

Galaxy
I am afraid I am sceptical about the idea of a golden age when transsexuals just wanted to quietly live their own lives.

For a long time here on GN threads there has been a multiplicity of posters who know trans people who want to claim just that.
Of course none of their trans acquaintances, family members, etc would ever do anything harmful.

The only trans I have met have been ill intentioned, but at one time, declaring that on here would have immediately been labelled transphobic.
That word was always incorrectly used. It’s not an irrational fear.

Interesting that though fear has been mentioned, the phobia words hasn’t been used so far on this thread.

The other thing to point out us this has been going on for much longer than we think. In 1995 vancouver rape relief was sued by a man identifying as a woman as they tried to prevent him being a counsellor for vulnerable women. Thirty years ago.
I am afraid I am sceptical about the idea of a golden age when transsexuals just wanted to quietly live their own lives.

Mollygo

^It is not our problem, the ball is in their (men’s) court.^

I agree, but those men who aren’t a problem don't see it like that unless and until it affects them.

Those men TW or not, who are a problem, don’t care.

Those women who excuse the men on the grounds that they’re not all like that are part of the problem.

I hear you.

But if we refuse to let it be our problem - it will just have to be theirs.

None of this will be easy, but when have such matters ever been so, for women anyway.

The 'not-all-men' debate has been thoroughly aired. We know it's not all men, but the fact that we can't know who they are, IMO, makes that argument pointless.

It is not our problem, the ball is in their (men’s) court.

I agree, but those men who aren’t a problem don't see it like that unless and until it affects them.

Those men TW or not, who are a problem, don’t care.

Those women who excuse the men on the grounds that they’re not all like that are part of the problem.