Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

I would suggest that trans people have the same right to fight for rights that women do. But I think the fear is that this ruling will divide the country into places where trans people are or are not welcome based on the opinion of those running the place. We will not know fully where anyone stands on that until the equality act is laid out on what organisations responsibilities are to trans people and women and what actually does qualify as a safe space for biological women. In other words, this will be tricky to navigate for a while and i would hope does not cause further attacks from women or trans people to each other.

Transpeople will or won't be welcome in a few limited spaces depending on whether they are using the ones designed for their sex. In the same way as everyone else. Otherwise they will be able to go about their business as usual.

The ruling has made it clear that opinions don't come into it any longer. Sex is based on biology, not opinion.

Yes, that's it in a nutshell, Doodledog.

Dickens. you hit the nail on the head.
But that is not what they want. Certainly not the TRAs anyway. They do not want their own spaces, they want ours. To force us to accept them as women.
That is what all the noise is about.

The TRAs will not give up without a fight.

So far, on the media, there hasn’t been much mutual consideration from those on the TW side who caused the need for a legal decision about the truth to be necessary.

Luminance
I've never had any trouble myself with sharing my views on protecting women's spaces with trans people

That’s a really vague, but definitely virtue signalling statement.

However, to be fair, I’ve had no trouble sharing my views on protecting women’s spaces either, though it’s not something I regularly do and depending on the attitude of the trans I’ve had contact with, they have been well accepted or fiercely argued against, with accusations of transphobia or discrimination.
Do you suppose the fiercely argumentative ones will have a different, more respectful attitude following the Supreme Court ruling?

X has been very funny these past two days. Someone has just pointed out that Daly Thompson ( who is a great defender of women's rights) will be the last gender critical person in the country to find out about the ruling

I've just been reading some of the fabulous posts on X Galaxy; the memes about Stonewall are especially good!

If you enjoyed X, you'll probably enjoy Spiked too; some very sharp but funny articles on there.

Thank you for the post from Maya Forstater.
I noticed particularly the following statement:
The Supreme Court also referred to the judgment in my case by Sir Akhlaq Choudhury, who found that gender-critical beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society” in my case. He ruled that the GRA does not compel a person to believe something that they do not saying only that a GRC must not be disregarded in circumstances where it was legally relevant.
To me this means that no-one is compelled to use the pronouns selected by a transperson when they are incorrect, particularly he, she and they. If a person chooses to use pronouns relevant to a person's assumed gender that is up to them but they have the right to refuse without fear of prosecution, as was happening in schools.
Good.

It's not virtue signalling on my part, I am not sure you understand the term Mollygo neither is it virtue signalling to point out that there are trans people who do not wish any harm to women, have not encroached on their safe spaces and have not campaigned for anything. If you do not believe that, that is a choice you are incorrect about because it does not come under a protected belief by any means and is covered by equality laws on discrimination instead.

Luminance - your posts are imo increasingly patronising, dramatic, over stated and simply incorrect. Where have you seen anyone suggesting trans people don’t have the same right as women to fight for rights?

The court has ruled. We do know ‘where everyone will stand’. It’s easier to know this, not more difficult, no matter how much you seek to make it so.

Sometimes Luminance I get the impression that you only read your own posts. I and others on GN have long acknowledged that there are trans, TW in particular, who do no harm and demand no rights that they are not entitled to have. I and others on GN have also pointed out how much they are at risk from the TW/TRA respect neither female, nor other trans rights. Seems you have missed that, but it never hurts to have it repeated.

Mollygo

Sometimes Luminance I get the impression that you only read your own posts. I and others on GN have long acknowledged that there are trans, TW in particular, who do no harm and demand no rights that they are not entitled to have. I and others on GN have also pointed out how much they are at risk from the TW/TRA respect neither female, nor other trans rights. Seems you have missed that, but it never hurts to have it repeated.

I was about to say the same, Mollygo. Quite a number of us have made that exact point, as you say. We all know that there are trans people who do no harm and don't demand access to spaces to which they are not entitled. It's not them we are concerned about, but I notice Luminance hasn't been as quick to condemn the other ones - the very vocal, militant trans lobby who are now hurling insults, abuse and even death threats at 'terfs', as they say. I've literally just read on Twitter (X) a post from one who says they will cry rape if anyone dares to question their right to be in a woman's bathroom. Making a mockery of rape is pretty low by anyone's standards.

Then I would suggest allowing it to stand unchallenged when I say it Mollygo. I appreciate you don't want to hear about my thoughts on why gender dysphoria happens or the thoughts of others in my field but you could easily not read those if it makes you rather uncomfortable.

there are trans people who do not wish any harm to women, have not encroached on their safe spaces and have not campaigned for anything.

Regrettably their are many more trans activists who do wish harm to women, both verbally and physically and their are many cases you can find via the power of Google to corroborate that. Their are, even now, following the Supreme Court ruling, many trans activists who have clearly and publicly stated that they intend to ignore the law and will carry on invading places they have no rights to be in. We can only hope that they're made an example of when they're taken to court themselves. And as women won't back down or be quiet now, that could come sooner than you think.

Who on gransnet has said that they DON'T believe that " there are trans people who do not wish any harm to women, have not encroached on their safe spaces and have not campaigned for anything.", Luminance? I don't recall any post from anyone which included that, not even when Stonewall was using their considerable influence as lobbyists, and Trans/rights activists were getting people cancelled right left and centre. There has always been an acknowledgment that the majority of trans people are living their lives in quiet harmony and domesticity.

You are setting up a straw man to start a fight with that one.

Empty words have been stated if the same people cannot allow any positive statements about trans people to go unchallenged. Now that is a rather good example of virtue signalling coming from people other than myself.

What does this mean

I have been entertaining visitors this afternoon, so I must have missed that. Which positive statements have been challenged?

What does this mean?
"It means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

Not original but totally appropriate.
Remarkable tolerance shown by posters on here, I would say.

Luminance

Then I would suggest allowing it to stand unchallenged when I say it Mollygo. I appreciate you don't want to hear about my thoughts on why gender dysphoria happens or the thoughts of others in my field but you could easily not read those if it makes you rather uncomfortable.

Oh no Luminance.
Letting LGB your inaccuracies go unchallenged would be doing no service to anyone, whether they’re your inaccuracies or from others in your field wherever that is.
I’ve just read a post from a mother of a baby who boy who has decided he’s transgender.
Gender dysphoria or Munchausens by proxy?
You shouldn’t assume your comments make me feel uncomfortable either. That’s assumption is as big an untruth as saying you can change sex.
😁

Luminance

Empty words have been stated if the same people cannot allow any positive statements about trans people to go unchallenged. Now that is a rather good example of virtue signalling coming from people other than myself.

I have no idea what you mean by that? What positive statements have gone unchallenged? Who on here are you accusing of virtue signalling, because I've seen nothing like that.

Speaking of empty words; I was just thinking about the Sandie Peggie v Fife NHS case and remembered a particular statement that Dr Upton made whilst under oath. He made the following statement: I’m biologically female. The term biologically female or biologically male is completely nebulous. It has no defined or agreed meaning in science, as far as I’m aware.” Now at the time, I remember being astounded that a medically qualified professional, who had undergone many years of training in science and biology, could ever really believe that; let alone state it whilst in a court of law and legally obliged to tell the truth. So how will Wednesday's ruling impact on his testimony and could their be repercussions in regards to fitness to practice? Just thinking aloud really......

Luminance

Empty words have been stated if the same people cannot allow any positive statements about trans people to go unchallenged. Now that is a rather good example of virtue signalling coming from people other than myself.

What are you talking about?

eazybee

^What does this mean?^
"It means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

Not original but totally appropriate.
Remarkable tolerance shown by posters on here, I would say.

Thanks eazybee - it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less

Simply perfect in every way (as Mary Poppins might sing )

It’s a sad level of debate when people have to make things up to bolster their own point of view.

It’s an even lower level when they have to make up things their opponents are supposed to have said.

I suppose the ignoring of requests for proof or alternatively providing unintelligible answers, is inevitable given the first two.

But the suggestion that other posters should back off and “allow” such posts to go unchallenged must be the ultimate in desperation.

🙄🤔