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

Doodledog you say that "the quiet" transpeople should have spoken up but to be fair you also said not everyone is born brave.

To be caught between fears of exposure by declaring "coming out" at work, socially, and fears of criticism by TRA's was a terribly hard place to be in. There were and are still attacks and mocking in society at large.

Not trying to pick a fight here. Just to understand an aspect of what has happened.

I don't really care if people spoke up or not. I differ from a few people on here I think, in that I don't have any expectation that trans people should have spoken up, I suppose in the same way I don't care whether men speak up about male violence. The whole speak up for a group identity politics just isn't my thing.

To be caught between fears of exposure by declaring "coming out" at work, socially, and fears of criticism by TRA's was a terribly hard place to be in. There were and are still attacks and mocking in society at large.

I'll counter that statement with "To be caught between fears of knowing the biological reality and being declared transphobic, bigoted or a TERF for daring to even question transgender. To fear your employer or colleagues will insist that you need to be "retrained" unless your emails state your pronouns. To fear needing the services or support of a rape crisis centre and knowing that, should you dare say that you only want to see a woman; you'll be told to reframe your bigotry.

There were and are still attacks and mocking in society at large.

This is true. We only need to cast our minds back to last weekend when placards calling for the rape/decapitation/death of TERFS were on our streets.

Matthew 7:5 first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

You're right Wyllow that it would have been difficult. I suppose what I mean is that if a group of individuals (and we have to remember that they were individuals, not an organised mass, IYSWIM) is prepared to accept bad things happening in their name, then when that stops they can't realistically expect everyone - particularly the people who fell victim to what was happening - to put them at the top of the priority list when it comes to putting things right.

So if someone was in the WI and 'passing' as a woman - the 'quiet' TW we have referred to before - and realised that the screaming TRAs attacking feminists and threatening all sorts of violence was being done in the name of TWAW, and that other members of the WI were asking for a vote on whether TW should be considered women for the purposes of membership yet carried on regardless, she was complicit. Maybe not in the violence, but definitely in taking advantage of the prevailing No Debate culture. As an individual, there may not have been much she could do about any of it, but why join an organisation knowing that members are not comfortable with your being there? Why not form a similar one for transpeople, or ask to be Associate Members with no voting rights or something (I'm clutching at straws a bit, so that might not be a great idea).

I'm not suggesting Mao-style denouncements or anything remotely similar, but I think it's unreasonable to suggest that TW in that position should have special pleading when the dust settles. Just as the prevailing attitude then was that TWAW and they went along with that, the law now says that they are men, so they can't have it both ways.

I am not saying this from a position of wanting vengeance or to seek to hurt 'quiet' TW. Not at all. I have sympathy for people just wanting to go about their lives, I honestly do. But the way women were silenced, victimised and swept aside by the TRAs makes it difficult for me to feel that women should give an inch on this. It was making allowances that got us here, a step at a time.

I know you aren't trying to pick a fight, and nor am I - and I hope this post doesn't sound vindictive. I am also trying to sort out my thoughts on all of this.

Fear of attack by TRA has been a major contributory factor in allowing the damage to females to continue.
Even now, SM is full of people throwing hatred at anyone who dared or still dares to say Only females are women.
We are still seeing the hate driven antics of some TW and TRA, and their mocking cries of, “You can’t stop us!”

I can understand why people who were just getting on with their lives said or did nothing.
Fear is indeed a great behaviour driver.

Fear of losing their jobs, or criticisms at work is what drove some women to kow-tow to the equally scared, or sometimes plain stupid rules that they must accept the lies they were being asked to use.

But if women had done that, we would still be allowing men to cheat at sports and lie their way into places, associations and jobs that they have no right to, just because they say, (with or without surgical or chemical intervention, or a GRC) that they are women.
I feel sympathy for those who will have their previously quiet lives disrupted by the ruling that your biological sex is the sex that you are, whether or not you try to dress it up as gender change.

I hope the new ruling will enable both women and trans to live in peace, but I’m absolutely certain that some TW are not interested in gender neutral.
They want to be something they can never be, and will use violence, lying and subterfuge to try and get it.

Oh if you have been in women's spaces that isn't being 'quiet', it is a deliberate decision. Anyone who did that knew that many women didn't consent and carried on anyway.

That's what I'm saying, Galaxy. I don't know a better word for a non-TRA TW though. Also, as I've always said, I don't have anything against TW per se - I just believe that women should have safe spaces, and that includes organisations and meetings - safety is not just about fear of attack.

Goodness me. I was only asking for an understanding of why a number of transwomen didn't/dont feel free or able to speak out.

(was responding to Carlotta)

Sorry doodledog I was only half concentrating.
There are some men who identify as women who have never used womens spaces and are really clear about that.
To be fair society has to shoulder some responsibility, if you tell people they can be women and have to use women's spaces in order to 'live' as women then it is not surprising that some of them followed that 'advice'.

"Trans women's access to Ladies' Pond is being considered"

"The organisation that manages Hampstead Heath said it was "carefully considering" a Supreme Court judgement which could impact transgender women's access to the Ladies' Pond. The group last year rejected a motion proposing that "only those born female in sex can use the pond. There are three swimming ponds on the heath, the others are a men's pond and a mixed pond. As the KLPA is not responsible for managing the pond, including defining who is allowed to access the pond, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court ruling is relevant to the KLPA's existence or activities."

So, as there is already a men's pond, a women's pond and a mixed pond; what's the problem with transgender swimmers using the mixed pond? And will the City of London Corporation, who manages them, really be allowed to simply ignore the ruling and carry on as before? Or will they be forced to change the name of Ladie's Pond?

Goodness me. I was only asking for an understanding of why a number of transwomen didn't/dont feel free or able to speak out.

And your reaction perfectly demonstrates why women have kept quiet.

Define 'Society.'
It was not 'society' who told people (men) they can be women and have to use women's spaces in order to live as women; it was individuals in many organisations who literally took the law into their own hands for a variety of reasons and imposed their beliefs on others in increasingly threatening ways when complaints were made.
The worst abuse I have received has been:' the world has moved on you know; nobody thinks that that anymore; you mustn't upset people by not using their chosen pronouns'; but I don't have to fear for my job or livelihood

I welcomed your reply Doodledog yes its a process am thinking through as time goes on as to whats best peace wise.
So much war.

I can understand the "why should we support or sympathise with the quiet ones" after all that's happened, but one good reason is to give reassurance/resources about living their lives out and not force them into joining extremists.

^ living their lives out and not force them into joining extremists.^
Would the quiet ones join extremists?
That doesn’t give a very reassuring picture of how quiet they actually are.

eazybee

Define 'Society.'
It was not 'society' who told people (men) they can be women and have to use women's spaces in order to live as women; it was individuals in many organisations who literally took the law into their own hands for a variety of reasons and imposed their beliefs on others in increasingly threatening ways when complaints were made.
The worst abuse I have received has been:' the world has moved on you know; nobody thinks that that anymore; you mustn't upset people by not using their chosen pronouns'; but I don't have to fear for my job or livelihood

The GRA and governments around 2017 raising the issue of self ID did create the situations - not knowing the consequences at the time - of suggesting that ID in terms of gender was realistic.

Many have described the consequences of that over and over here, how it got taken over by TRA's,

but what it had done was give the "quiet TW " expectations which they are having to unpick now.

Talking to some women I come into contact with who know little about the whole debate as it hasn't impacted them directly - this understanding wasnt uncommon.

Mollygo

^ living their lives out and not force them into joining extremists.^
Would the quiet ones join extremists?
That doesn’t give a very reassuring picture of how quiet they actually are.

Well, everyone is different of course, you cant generalise about groups of all kinds, political, social, but my point was a general human one

that if you start feeling attacked or something has been taken away, you might join a more extreme group.

that if you start feeling attacked or something has been taken away, you might join a more extreme group.

Women didn't. We've had so much taken away; our very existence in many cases. We were/are continually attacked. We have not become extremists. We simply refuse to stay quiet and accept the unacceptable any longer.

Wyllow3
I’m puzzled.
Are you saying that women who have been attacked and had their rights taken away by lying men are extremists for refusing to accept that behaviour?

Obviously I'm not Wyllow, but I think she is saying that if a TW has been living in a particular way (eg as a member of the WI and using female toilets) and then finds that this is no longer possible there might be a temptation to fight back, which could lead to extremism.

I don't think that should stop the ruling from being enforced, but it is true that people react far more strongly to having things removed than to not having them in the first place, so it is a consideration.

Also, as we have always said, the point is to protect women, not to victimise TW. I don't see trying to understand their point of view as a bad thing, even though I absolutely believe we have to stand firm as regards our spaces. To use the case of the WI as an example, it may be that TW and the women who welcome them could form a separate group and leave the WI for women only. There will be similar ways to accommodate everyone if there is a will, but where there can be no compromise (eg in wards and prisons) TW will have to accept that they are not women, and live with that.

It's much easier to be a handmaiden MollyGo. It takes so much more energy and determination not to give in, stand back and be quiet. Ask Helen Joyce, JK Rowling, Maya Forstater or Kathleen Stock?

You’re probably right Doodledog, but to me, saying if quiet TW felt under attack they might fight back. . . leading to extremism.^ there seemed to be an implication that the ruling, which is the outcome of women who had suffered attack and who had finally fought back, is extremist.

Certainly the Women Won’t Wheesht group were accused of being extremists, for fighting back against the lies and attacks by TW/TRA.

Doodledog

Obviously I'm not Wyllow, but I think she is saying that if a TW has been living in a particular way (eg as a member of the WI and using female toilets) and then finds that this is no longer possible there might be a temptation to fight back, which could lead to extremism.

I don't think that should stop the ruling from being enforced, but it is true that people react far more strongly to having things removed than to not having them in the first place, so it is a consideration.

Also, as we have always said, the point is to protect women, not to victimise TW. I don't see trying to understand their point of view as a bad thing, even though I absolutely believe we have to stand firm as regards our spaces. To use the case of the WI as an example, it may be that TW and the women who welcome them could form a separate group and leave the WI for women only. There will be similar ways to accommodate everyone if there is a will, but where there can be no compromise (eg in wards and prisons) TW will have to accept that they are not women, and live with that.

Just so, as regards my thoughts, and no more.

Doodledog
Also, as we have always said, the point is to protect women, not to victimise TW.

I don't see trying to understand their point of view as a bad thing, even though I absolutely believe we have to stand firm as regards our spaces.

To use the case of the WI as an example, it may be that TW and the women who welcome them could form a separate group and leave the WI for women only.

There will be similar ways to accommodate everyone if there is a will, but where there can be no compromise (eg in wards and prisons) TW will have to accept that they are not women, and live with that.

So many of us on GN agree with the points you make there. (Split up to facilitate reading them.)

So many of us are also concerned about the backlash to the ruling that we have already seen.

And the Green Party has already announced that the interim guidance from single sex spaces is ill considered and impractical.

The Green Party canvasser who called here said she supported the ruling, but many of the party members were still not convinced that TW can’t be women.

The Green Party have always had a tenuous grasp on facts and reality MollyGo; hence why they've never been considered a viable electoral choice. Scottish Greens are almost entirely responsible for the debacle of women's rights in Scotland based on their unwavering support for a biological male being employed in a job where schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010 applied.