J K Rowling has nailed it - re Starmer and the trans issue

Of course not all transwomen are tiny fragile and pretty, and it's a shame in many ways that things have escalated as they have done over the past 20 years, because I suspect "tiny,fragile and pretty" would have slipped in and out of the ladies lavs unnoticed, and would we have cared? I think not. As others have said "that was never going to be enough for those hell bent on confrontation and upping the ante" and whilst telling us women to "budge up and stop being bigots" they have also thrown the quiet non aggressive transwoman under the bus too, but what does that matter when you're fighting the good fight? Rosie, your cartoon perfectly illustrates the tunnel vision that go with people who live in their own bubbles and it doesn't matter how many bright young educated individuals sit round a dinner table and discuss the matter, they were probably never going to be the ones who may have been smacked around on a basket ball court, or expected to be in a locker room along side a 6ft male with broad shoulders and muscle bound calves, being eyed up whilst surreptitiously trying to change without exposing body parts. "Make sure you keep sure you keep your face to the wall cis girls, or go in the toilets to get your kit on and off if you are so bigoted to complain when they, their team mate who is going to thrash them and cheat them out of any first place, leave their lady penis dangling for all to see"

Personally, I can't help thinking I'm more aligned to the school girls knee jerk reaction, maybe not the towering intellect of the chattering classes, but making what could be deemed as a bald statement to Suzie Eddie, or any man who is in girly mode whether it be a temporary whim or permanent on confrontation in a women's loo, with a "you shouldn't be here" Were they fooled by Suzie's jaunty raspberry pink beret, vertiginous heels with a smear of jam like lipstick? Kind of "no" because they/he/she, still to all intents and purposes looked like a geezer, not a fragile flower. And, if you happen to be 14 with some baulked up individual who looks like a man in a dress and makeup in the midst of what should be a female only space, you can't be expected to know, particularly if you are alone, what their intent is. So therein lies the problem, like the rest of the human race, they don't have a one size fits all. There's a spectrum from the flowery delicates to the full on beefy Desperate Dans and everything in between. There seems to be such a lack of deep thinking from so called intelligent people who can make blanket judgements on an older generation of feminists, when they probably haven't a clue of the issues that will have impacted those lives to form opinions, but then again they're probably talking from the perspective of their own echo chamber. As others have pointed out, much of the framing of opposition to the great swathes of nonsense that has been thrust upon us has come from MN, strangely a younger demographic.

baulked bulked

Agree on everything you've said Terribull, that's a perfect summary.

There's a spectrum from the flowery delicates to the full on beefy Desperate Dans and everything in between.

Maybe more attention should be drawn to that spectrum. 😁

There's currently a very salient active thread over on Mumsnet that's discussing how their thoughts and beliefs about trans rights when they were "bright young things", changed; and what event or news item was it that brought about that change of opinion. Almost every single poster has said "becoming a parent and realising the implications for them". It's interesting to see how life's events change our young idealistic opinions.

Well said TerriBull, but I fear your knowledge and understanding will be ignored or rejected by those intent in supporting males, however they appear.

There is lots of evidence of great sympathy for those TW whose lives will be devastated by this ruling especially from women and girls whose lives have been devastated by being cheated out of awards by males, or being faced by a TW who shrieks transphobe when they ask for female support or being told to put up or shut up when going into what were deemed male free spaces, only to find ill-intentioned males there.

Because of the behaviour of those TW males, ill-intentioned will now cover any male who lies his way into a female space, whatever they look like.
Men caused that, but women are still being blamed, even by other women.

Yes that bbc revelation was 4 years ago but the bias has not changed. Why? After the Supreme Court ruling no gender critical were interviewed only trans activist playing victim, calling on decades of quiet fortitude!! In fact a 79 year old transsexual with cancer who was frightened of going into hospital for forthcoming operation… how many strings could they play?
The greatest problem is the contradiction between the Supreme Court and the 2010 Equality Act. In which the rights of transgender people are enshrined, where they have rights as well as women’s sex based rights. Culturally the trans are still winning, corporations signed up to stonewall and brainwashed will defy the law and appeal to the various meanings of the Equality Act which will have to be clarified.

Oh good god yes. I spent 10 years volunteering for an HIV charity, I absolutely chanted TWAW, I do understand where it comes from.
I will point out that the 'allies' got many many things wrong with regard to HIV campaigning, and a lot of it was a non negotiable mantra. This has been very similar.

n fact a 79 year old transsexual with cancer who was frightened of going into hospital for forthcoming operation

What is he frightened of?
It's very likely that he'll be obviously male, especially in pyjamas or a gown, so at no risk in a male ward.

It's also quite likely that the hospital will continue to place people in wrong sex wards if that's what they want.
The huge brainwashing exercise can't be so easily reversed.

Until there is more clear guidance, I expect nurses and doctors to make "best option" decisions for patients based on individual circumstances - in so far as they have the beds to do this.

What they have gained by the ruling is when its clear cut your bearded/aggressive male patient they can now say a clear "no"to womens wards but in practice its not often clear cut - a man who has had full transition and lived as a women for a long time isn't the same.

They are, according to the law. This problem has been created by society telling men they can become women. We can't organise single sex spaces on 'passing', it is cruel.

I do understand your in principle approach Galaxy but real life decisions need to be made to avoid cruelty, as well not to mention conflicts.
There may well be men who want privacy from whom they perceive to be a woman from all sorts of embarrassing

situations as well as vice versa

ie putting a transman who roll intents an purposes is seen as a man by the women on a womens ward

correct" ie putting a transman who for all intents and purposes is seen as a man by the women on a womens ward creating great discomfort for the women" - what about them?

If the law is properly observed in hospitals patients on a ward will know for example that the person in the bed opposite, although sporting a beard, is in fact a biological female. On the men's ward that pretty 'slip of a thing' in the next bed is a biological male. I'm not suggesting that either scenario will necessarily be comfortable for all concerned but there would be no doubt that you were still on a single sex ward. In practice I expect the transpeople will get the luxury of a single side room which actually is the preference for lots of people.

I was typing while you posted Wyllow3. Given the tiny percentage of transpeople, as we're constantly told, it shouldn't realistically be an everyday problem on every ward.

And on the woman's ward the women are supposed to be comfortable with the person who clearly looks male, enforced on them? And is it proper to force the situation breaking privacy by revealing to all and sundry that X is in fact really a women" Is that what sick people want to undergo?

Oh, thanks for that cross posted notification, Rosie. Yes ideally a private room but the reality thats usual reserved for people who are extremely sick or dying or have a dangerous infection.

As you say, it isnt huge numbers thats why I suggest what I do, now nurses can say "no".

Who is going to make the decision whether someone passes well enough? Wouldn't it be a kick to the stomach for anyone to have to say "Sorry Julie, you don't pass, you're obviously a male so we can't put you on the women's ward but Jane here is so pretty they'll never know so 'she' can"? As I said in reality these patients will be allocated a single side room, no outing at all. I am very uncomfortable with any law being broken on the basis of looks.

And if that male commits a crime on the ward ( because no evidence exists that how men pass impacts the way men offend) and the women take a court case against the hospital for breaking the law, what will happen then.

Well definitely the single room is the hope.

In the real world people are assessed all the time from how they present. It becomes a problem when conflicts arise. I dont imagine the gym is gong to start strip searching women if they suspect they are trans for example.

What I'm saying is that circumstances create grey areas

Nurses wouldn't tell Julie about Jane!

The last court case against an organisation which tried to curtail gender critical speech cost the organisation half a million. Organisations need to follow the law. Hospitals are simple as they need to know that persons sex or they can't treat them.

Nurses wouldn't tell Julie about Jane! might have to if they came in at the same time! But seriously, if it's known, and it would be, that some transwomen get to be admitted to the women's ward and Julie gets told they must have the single room, then Julie is left in no doubt that they don't pass well enough, they've been judged on looks alone.
There will be situations where transpeople will access single sex spaces wrongly, but a medical setting should never be one, and especially not with the connivance of the authorities who know the truth.

We’ll just have to watch what happens.

Will obeying the law or accepting a lie be considered more important?

I think we do need the guidance which the Equalities commission will give and the "in practice" advice.
"
The organisation "Refuge" for example serves men and women but the actual refuses are women only "except in exceptional circumstances".

Given the realities of hospital provision, and if no single room available, will the law compel a transman to be situated on a womens ward causing great concern and discomfort? There has to be leeway for common sense professional decisions.

In that situation I suspect the transman should have to be on the women's ward. No doubt it would be uncomfortable and potentially distressing for all, but the patients would at least be reassured that they were all biological females. In practice if the transman passed well, and lots who are on testosterone do, I'd accept them being placed on the men's ward. Before anyone screams hypocrite at me, yes I know I am being hypocritical but my main concern is with the safety and dignity of women. Transmen aren't usually a danger to men, normally being of smaller stature and definitely less physical strength. Transition does not diminish a transwoman's stature nor strength so that's why I'm against transwomen on women's wards.