Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

Thanks Elegran. A good post which makes very valid points.

No, I have not asked for posters to denounce any lack of rights for trans people. I do appreciate that rather a lot of thought went into that Elegran but it's not relevant to anything I have said, actually entirely the opposite. I am rather unsure how that would happen.

I don't think you will be happy with anything that anyone says, Luminance, because what you are asking is that posters denounce the lack of rights for trans people, yet you don't specify which rights. If you would look at the evidence of the rights which they have, and list those which they don't have, you might get an answer that means something to you.

As it is, you tell us that you deal with traumatised patients. Those traumas are physical or mental/emotional. Physically injuring someone is illegal. Trans people have the same right not to be physically injured as non-trans, and anyone injuring them is liable to be arrested and charged with an offence.

Mental or emotional traumas are a more elusive injury. There is legislation (I assume you are in the UK.) about this kind of injury. www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/gender-reassignment-discrimination

Legislation only changes the law and gives legal rights. It doesn't change people's opinions and prejudices. Those are altered by reflecting on the universality of the human experience and vulnerability, by observing the people about whom someone is prejudiced, and towards whom they feel antipathy, (for whatever reason - cultural or religious, from fear or suspicion of the "other" or whatever) and realising that they are not a threat. That takes time and contact.

Being harangued to stop harassing them doesn't have the same effect as actually meeting them in a neutral situation and knowing that you don't need to defend yourself against them.

It takes time for a culture to change and accept what was once taboo, or to accept that what they once regarded as normal is now taboo. Child marriage, for example - daughters of powerful kings and emperors were once married very young to grizzled old men, to cement alliances and provide heirs. Or women doctors - female medical students were not allowed to sit in lectures, and had to listen from outside in a corridor, and not given a diploma however well they passed their exams. It took time and persistence to change attitudes in both these examples, and those changing minds and mores had to work hard and suffer a lot to achieve what we now take for granted.

My logic, which you did not agree with, was that the people who can change the attitude of Joe Public are mostly trans people themselves. If the people they work beside know that they are just like anyone else, and likewise the people the meet when they are not working, at church, in shops and cafes, in knitting groups and schools, on social media sites like Gransnet, in the crowd at a football match, then they will have been an ambassador for trans normalness. It is what women in public life had to do, and suffer for, and they still are not totally equal in what is still a man's world.

They need a "marketing campaign" - but not one like Stonewall's, which ended up alienating more people than they converted. That is where more internet presence by those trans who don't agree with how TRA's have behaved could counter that alienation. That is what Mollygo was suggesting. They don't even need to actively condemn, just be actively different in their approach from those bullies, but their testimony is needed, just as the testimony and example of women was needed to get acceptance in male-dominated circles.

Is it absurd to hope that ensuring the correct boundaries are in place will improve relationships between women and trans women overall?

eazybee

I have no idea whether all trans people hate females and I don't much care; what I do care about is that the tacit permission for aggression and intolerance towards those who do not share trans beliefs has at last been challenged and removed. No longer will people face the possibility of losing their jobs because a very aggressive minority have been allowed to persecute people who have refused to follow their dictats. As for apologies, there should be restitution and compensation for teachers, lecturers, journalists, nurses and members of the public who have been hounded out of their jobs because they have steadfastly stated the truth: a person cannot change sex however much they wish to.

Definitely eazybee. What you say in your post is very important.

As far as I’m aware, no one has said all trans hate females. I’m not even sure if any trans hate females, though the actions of some and their TRA supporters, certainly gives the impression of hatred.

Rather, they coveted what females have and want it for themselves.
E.g. TW who want to be accepted by Lesbians, ignoring the fact that lesbians prefer females for their sexual lives.
TW who want to be put in female prisons, even when they’re convicted of rape.
TW and TRA who have caused females to lose their jobs or be arrested for
stating the truth, that TIM are not female.

ViceVersa that was in regard to the trans people I have been saying need not condemn anything publically for the last few pages now. Thank you for explaining however.

Smileless2012

I suggest you read the second sentence in your post @ 16.16 Luminance. Claiming or suggesting that you have felt unsafe and been put in the firing line while participating in this discussion does not create a friendly footing and is not asking questions for clarity and understanding.

Posts of this nature can make others uncomfortable as no one knows who or what you're referring too.

This often happens in these discussions - it's the Some People thing, isn't it?

Spot on, ViceVersa at 16:50:34. I can't help thinking that anyone who 'felt' he is a woman would be able to empathise with women who don't want to have men around when they are vulnerable. It's not about apartheid - it is only in limited situations when it matters.

I see that the Transport Police have been warned about transwomen strip-searching female detainees, for instance. I can't think of many situations where that might be necessary, but it must be easy enough for what I assume to be a small number of officers who have transitioned to avoid doing so. It shouldn't have needed today's ruling to force the issue.

There will no doubt be other similar situations, surrounding areas such as rape counselling and examination suites - again, it would have been much better if transwomen had shown empathy and not put women into a situation where they were being examined by a male after being raped. There are so many career options that don't involve compromising women's dignity, safety and mental health, so it seems perverse that transwomen go into areas where they will be called upon to do so.

What I would like to see is a push to make transpeople of both sexes (but particularly transwomen) accepted by members of their own sex, so that they can safely use facilities intended for them, rather than feeling that they have to pretend that they are female. It could become no more odd than someone using a staff loo when others use the public one, or people joining different queues in an airport depending on which passport they hold. Or my husband using one changing room and me another, for that matter. The rest of the time, everyone is just a person, and a difference is made only when it matters.

My concern, however, is that this won't give many transwomen what they want, which is power over women and the right to force us into compliance with their wish to be treated as though they are, in fact, female.

Luminance

ViceVersa Is my answer that I agree to the court ruling not enough? How did you interpret it?

No, it wasn't clear, because you then went on to say "It would seem to me that trans women are already upholding women's rights by not entering these areas in the first place." If that had been true, then we would never have needed this case to go to the Supreme Court to clarify the situation.

ViceVersa Is my answer that I agree to the court ruling not enough? How did you interpret it?

What we must understand is that some people are terrible. In every walk of life. There are fellow women out there that I have met who are racist, homophobic and showing it. Would I condemn them? Yes of course! Would I stand against them if they were bullying or harassing someone in public? Yes if it were safe to do so. I would at least report it. Would I go on some sort of very public platform to condemn them? No of course I wouldn't, I would likely make myself a target as myself in my real life where I do not discriminate. It is enough that here in discussion with all of you that I fully condemn those women.

Luminance

ViceVersa

I'm confused by that last sentence. It is precisely because some - and I stress some - transwomen insisted on trampling all over women's rights by invading single sex places in the first place that we have arrived at this situation.
How did we arrive at a place where, if a man exposed himself to a woman on the street, he could be arrested - but if he walked into a woman's changing room in a gym, say, and did the same, but claimed he was a woman, that would be ok? Would you be happy if he did that in front of your daughter, for instance?

To stay relevant in answering this question for myself as I assume it is general. I have agreed with the ruling and I do not have a daughter.

I was speaking hypothetically. Even if you do not have a daughter yourself, would you be happy with that situation?

ViceVersa

I'm confused by that last sentence. It is precisely because some - and I stress some - transwomen insisted on trampling all over women's rights by invading single sex places in the first place that we have arrived at this situation.
How did we arrive at a place where, if a man exposed himself to a woman on the street, he could be arrested - but if he walked into a woman's changing room in a gym, say, and did the same, but claimed he was a woman, that would be ok? Would you be happy if he did that in front of your daughter, for instance?

To stay relevant in answering this question for myself as I assume it is general. I have agreed with the ruling and I do not have a daughter.

Me too ViceVersa, if all trans women are already upholding women's rights by not entering these areas in the first place yesterday's ruling wouldn't have been needed.

Smileless2012 Again, you are not in charge of what is deemed personal or how I feel about and I see no point discussing that with you.

I'm confused by that last sentence. It is precisely because some - and I stress some - transwomen insisted on trampling all over women's rights by invading single sex places in the first place that we have arrived at this situation.
How did we arrive at a place where, if a man exposed himself to a woman on the street, he could be arrested - but if he walked into a woman's changing room in a gym, say, and did the same, but claimed he was a woman, that would be ok? Would you be happy if he did that in front of your daughter, for instance?

I suggest you read the second sentence in your post @ 16.16 Luminance. Claiming or suggesting that you have felt unsafe and been put in the firing line while participating in this discussion does not create a friendly footing and is not asking questions for clarity and understanding.

Posts of this nature can make others uncomfortable as no one knows who or what you're referring too.

What it seems to me is that women would prefer that trans people assimilate into society without asking for the rights women have fought for and won. So therefore it seems logical to allow that to happen by not dragging people already doing so into it or expecting them to join some group soapbox I still haven't ascertained the location of. It would seem to me that trans women are already upholding women's rights by not entering these areas in the first place.

Hopefully there will be eazybee because anyone whose lost their job or faced disciplinary action deserves an apology, restitution and compensation.

I have implied nothing, simply asked questions for clarity and understanding. Whether comments aimed at myself felt attacking to me is not yours to judge Smileless but perhaps we can continue as we are now things feel on a more friendly footing with more recent replies?

I have no idea whether all trans people hate females and I don't much care; what I do care about is that the tacit permission for aggression and intolerance towards those who do not share trans beliefs has at last been challenged and removed. No longer will people face the possibility of losing their jobs because a very aggressive minority have been allowed to persecute people who have refused to follow their dictats. As for apologies, there should be restitution and compensation for teachers, lecturers, journalists, nurses and members of the public who have been hounded out of their jobs because they have steadfastly stated the truth: a person cannot change sex however much they wish to.

Are you claiming to have been unsafe and put in the firing line here on this thread Luminance? If so, you need to give specific examples because all I've seen are posters disagreeing with you, especially when your posts imply that others here are not concerned about the harassment, discrimination, protection and safety of the trans community.

I do apologise Elegran but I cannot see the logic in that. My experience of this discussion so far is that advocating for peoples protection and safety and calling out harassment and discrimination did not keep me safe it rather put me in the firing line. I believe it was Galaxy who also acknowledged that trans people supporting women in a public way leading up to this ruling were also in the firing line of women they tried to uphold. Perhaps those who do in fact discriminate beyond the ruling whether driven by fear or something else are the ones who should be called into account on both sides rather than blaming the innocent who are also victims?

Excellent post Elegran.

I don't believe it, Luminance , any more than I (or you, I am sure) believe that all non-trans people harass trans ones and discriminate against them, but I am not everyone on this planet. There are many individuals who believe that what they see in the media is true. That is very obvious when you read what is posted by those who voted Trump into power and still cannot see how the reputation of the US is being destroyed as a result.

We get our view of the world by what we see of it. If those who speak for the trans community on the internet and appear in news items are mostly those who display hatred and aggression, then those who see and read it gain that picture of them. If the blogs and comments, and the videos of events, were more of peaceful trans people who detested the violence and the hatred of some of those who claim to represent them, and said so , it would begin to counteract the divisiveness that has been fostered by Stonewall, who treated the rise of transition as a war to be won, not as positive co-operation to be built up.

That goes against the instinct of mild personalities to stay below the parapet, but that was true of the struggles of feminists. It would have been easier for women to keep a low profile, but they persevered in going after legal, medical, literary and social advances for women. Today they would have been filling the internet with subtle persuasion - advertising, not war, is the key in a world of global communications.

Sorry that removed the quote function. That comment was to Elegran to avoid confusion.