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

Of course, it's not just about boys claiming to be girls. It's also about men claiming to be women as leaders or helpers.

Women have been ejected from their roles as Guide leaders for criticising and/or publicising this policy because they were deemed transphobic.
Now, tho, it's simply stating legal fact to comment or criticise it.

I hope Guides & Brownies are making this policy clear to parents, if they think it's legitimate. As long as everyone is aware of what it is, there's no legal problem.

Unbelievable-well actually not. That’s exactly what the TRA, the Greens, and even on SM are saying.
Ignore the rules, ignore the well-being of women, if it upsets the trans.
It’s enough to drive us to extremism!

There's currently a thread running on Mumsnet about a whistle-blower within Guides, saying that "Volunteers have been instructed that, irrespective of the Supreme Court judgement, boys who identify as girls can use female camp rooms and toilets. Worse still, parents must not be told."

Their webite Mission Statement still states As a girl-only organisation with a trans-inclusive Equality and diversity policy, we treat trans girls and women according to the gender they have transitioned, or are proposing to transition, to. Meaning trans girls and trans women are welcome to be a part of our great charity. There's no mention or reference to the recent SC ruling indicating that they're considering its implications going forward so, at the moment, it looks like they're digging their heels in.

Carlotta

...and as if to prove the point:

Carla Denyer, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said the interim guidance, which was published on Friday following the Supreme Court ruling on 15 April, was "rushed and ill-thought out".

"It's been really obvious that they have not listened to trans people," she told BBC One's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme.

They've not listened to trans people? Would that be a little bit like not having listened to women for the last 10 years? 🤔

Yes
The difference is that there was no outpouring of sympathy for the women who were not listened to for the last 10 years.
Despite the frequent implications that women don’t care about trans,
I am concerned about the outcomes for trans whilst the mess of the last ten years is sorted out.
It’s not much fun having to worry whether you will be safe going into places that you once thought you could access safely as women know only too well.

There needs to be a concerted effort by trans and their obvious supporters, to establish their own ‘safe places’ without claiming that they are women.
The examples of lockable neutral toilets opening into open spaces, is a good one. Why does that have to mean women are no longer entitled to single sex spaces. Also, the troublemakers, as we have seen are more interested in being in spaces where they are not entitled to be, than having gender neutral toilets. The idea posted earlier that the ‘quiet ones’ might join the extremists is worrying.
How do the ^quiet trans’ that people know, feel about gender neutral toilets, since they are now legally not allowed in female safe spaces?
Will they happily accept them?

Small parties were very vulnerable to this ideology, it happened in the Lib dems as well.
With regards to society I do partly blame those who have been chanting TWAW for the last decade. That wasn't just political parties it was media, organisations, etc. It was those with power so yes I suppose you might be right about 'most people' eazybee but many of the 'elite' enabled it. Its what happens when the media, political parties, etc become increasingly removed from 'ordinary people'.
Oh and absolutely no exceptions, no men however lovely, however quiet, however pretty in female spaces.
Organisations won't undermine for long, it will be too costly.

...and as if to prove the point:

Carla Denyer, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said the interim guidance, which was published on Friday following the Supreme Court ruling on 15 April, was "rushed and ill-thought out".

"It's been really obvious that they have not listened to trans people," she told BBC One's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme.

They've not listened to trans people? Would that be a little bit like not having listened to women for the last 10 years? 🤔

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.

That is the government and those responsible for the Gender Recognition Act, not society in general. Most people had no idea what was being decided until too late.

but what it had done was give the "quiet TW " expectations which they are having to unpick now.
So the men, the 'quiet ones', who believed they could transition into a female simply by possession of a certificate, had little knowledge of what lay behind it all? Really?

I do not understand this over -riding concern for trans women , 'the quiet ones,' to be allowed to use women only spaces, such as the WI, and The Ladies' Pond, because
one good reason is to give reassurance/resources about living their lives out and not force them into joining extremists.

What is the point of a Supreme Court judgement if people are already considering ways of undermining it, and deeming it acceptable for these 'quiet ones' to become activists if they do not get their way? Defying the Law?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

^ 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.

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.

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

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.

"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?

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'.

(was responding to Carlotta)