Some memberz of the communniny
The BBC is distraught over claims that women have rights.
It’s been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act, “woman” means a biological woman. The decision was welcomed by some women’s rights groups but condemned in the transgender community. How are they and others affected by the ruling feeling now?
Or to put it another way, it’s been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that women have rights. How do people who think women should not have rights feel about this ruling now?
While the full implications of the ruling are not yet clear, some members of the trans community feel threatened by it.
Hey Beeb, you know what? Some members of the female communniny feel threatened by your passion for attacking women’s rights.
Kate Lankester, a 25-year-old trans woman who works in trans healthcare, says life is “a living hell”.
“I’m walking out of the house scared every single day,” she says. “I worry about who’s looking. I worry if someone’s going to say something to me.”
Looking at what? Say something about what? Does he wear a pumpkin on his head or something?
Jessica Brown, 45, has been “out” for about 20 years and says she has recently noticed a “huge uptick” in transphobia. She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.
“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.
Well it was nice of Jessica Brown to feed the BBC what it so obviously wanted to hear, but I’m not 100% sure I believe his account is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
All five in the Ipswich group say they are more anxious about the future following the court’s decision.
Benji Rayson, a 35-year-old bingo caller who identifies as non-binary, says they do not believe the ruling will “fix anything” but has instead “shone a light on a community that just wants to get on and do their own thing”.
Hahaha ok Beeb, you got me. I thought you were serious until “a 35-year-old bingo caller who identifies as non-binary.” Hahahahaha you win.
Which would be women. They want to just get on and do their own thing; the trans ‘community’ just wants to be looked at constantly.
I am also suspicious of many of the reports of abuse; this particular cohort appears to have a physiological and psychological need to be perceived as abused and reviled, preferably without being actually abused and reviled.
Well, given that you probably think being called a man is abusive, pardon me if I don’t take your word for it. Given that you think the ruling is incorrect (for no reason other than its curtailment of your former “centred” and “validating” use of female spaces you shouldn’t have been entering in the first place), you’ll have to excuse my lack of sympathy. The scales of justice have finally weighed your desires and whims against the safety and dignity of women, and found in favour of the latter. It is frightening to think it might not have gone that way.
Maya Forstater’s first employment tribunal judge ruled against her, calling her (now protected) beliefs “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. What if the second judge in her case had agreed? What if the judges of the Supreme Court had been as captured as her first tribunal judge? What if Stonewall Law had prevailed? For far too long it did, causing untold grief to how many thousands, or millions, of women in the UK. “Kate” Lancaster would have been fine with that, because he was fine under Stonewall Law. He’s upset now because his is no longer the whip hand, having lost much of the unearned and undeserved power and influence he and his fellow trans identified males have enjoyed for the better part of a decade. (Though it looks like the BBC is trying its best to drag the last bit of the struggle out, siding with the reactionary forces fighting the restoration of sanity and women’s rights. Which side of history are they on again?)
That your side never acknowledged the actual harms caused to women and girls by your fetish-driven gender adventurism, and the predatory advantage taken by other opportunistic males using Self ID as a cover (both of which were predicted, and do then documented, by women as this horror show unfolded against their will), says all I need to know about how many tears I should shed on your behalf.
It’s a disgrace that the BBC is still seeking you out to commiserate with you on your fall from power, rather than talking to women and girls who are rightfully celebrating having been relieved of the burden and fear of having to accommodate your intrusion into their spaces. This great victory belongs to them, yet the BBC is making it out to be some kind of tragic loss because you’re looking at it from the wrong goddam side. It’s like they’re covering the fall of a tyrannical regime by trying to garner sympathy from the public on behalf of the fallen tyrants and their ruthless henchmen. “Spare a thought for the sacked secret policemen, and unemployed torterers. They’re having to go out amongst the people they tormented and go on living from day to day, out in the open, without the security aparatus of the state, and the anonymous, fickle, exercise of its retributive powers to protect and avenge them.” The BBC is still on the side of the gender ayatollahs, who pine for the days when their fatwas held sway.
This is not as much of an exaggeration as it might appear to be, (or one might have wished). Given what we were seeing here on B&W, for far too many women, (and for society as a whole), the UK under trans “rights” was turning into a police state, with the power of the government, police, courts, and corporations all moving to dismantle women’s rights, and stifling any protest against that movement. It’s easy to see the delusional lunacy of the views being proposed, enected, and enforced. We’ve been pointing out the insanity every day for years. But the craziness and incoherence did not keep these measures from being proposed, enacted, and enforced to begin with. It was a near run thing that might have gone either way. It is frightening to think too long on how much this outcome has depended on luck rather than reason and reality.
Yeah, no. I wouldn’t take your word for what you claim as “transphobia.” Reality is “transphobic” according to your lot, so, no. Try again.
Nobody should be assaulted, or abused. No excuses. There are laws against that, laws that have been there for decades, which this ruling leaves intact. This ruling does not touch the human rights that you share with your fellow citzens. You have the same recourse to the law as everyone else. (Though if you consider being called “he” or “sir” “abuse”, you might find that your legal recourse might not cover having your feelings hurt, or being offended. Again my own sensitivity to cries of “abuse” or even “assault” from trans activists have been blunted by years of transperbole. But if you have a real case, call the police, press charges. Just make sure you’re not sending them after stickers, ribbons, and limericks. They may no longer be as quick to jump at these.) Try again.
Of course people shouldn’t yell vile things at random passersby. It’s rude and frightening. I know this from expereince. Yes, it’s upsetting, but it’s not illegal. Once it passes into illegality, from epithet to threat, I have recourse to the law. Until that line is crossed, I have to live with it. Hurting my feelings is not breaking the law. If the threshold were that low, courts and jails would be packed to a standstill. But for a while, in the UK, hurting your feelings was illegal. Remember? Stickers? Ribbons? Limericks? For some reason, transactivism’s speed-dial was always answered by the police, for the slightest of slights, and the mildests of criticisms, so long as they were labeled “transphobic”. Late night visits by the police, based on single, anoymous complanants. People lost their jobs for holding the “wrong” beliefs (beliefs which are now, thanks to the courage of women like Maya Forstater, Alison Bailey, and others, who faced down the hijacked, corrupted power of the state, protected). People were arrested for uttering statements of fact, or for trivial mockery, if it was something touching in the privileged, sacred status of Trans. Women could only marvel at the speed with which trans privilege was protected and enforced against the hard-won rights of women, which have never received anywhere near the degree of political, legal, and police support and protection that genderists were able to command overnight.
Women have had to put up with abuse, lower wages, employment ghettoization, under-representation in all walks of life, assault, rape, and murder for centuries. Transactivism exacerbated this situation by eroding women’s sex-based rights and protections. Erasing women in law (which is what would happen if transactivism successfully redefined “woman” to include “non-women”), would destroy the protections and resources that women do have, and prevent the implementation and monitoring of any measures designed to redress historical, systemic barrires to women’s safety and advancement. This is what the Supreme Court ruling was about. Women were forced to seek this ruling because there was so much at stake. Transactivism was fine with the sacrifice of women’s rights and women’s lives, so long as men-pretending-to-be-women got what they wanted. This was the point of the mantra of “TWAW”, of “NO DEBATE”, of “NO CONFLICT”. All of these thought killing slogans were designed to allow the legalization of the male invasion and permanent occupation of women’s spaces without any examination of the price women would pay. Women must never be allowed to say “No”. IIt might have been called “Trans Rights”, but in reality it was an attempted coup by Rape Culture. This is the movement that the BBC is wringing its hands over in teary-eyed nostalgia. Disgusting.
Women won. Society won. REALITY WON. Men are not women. You are men, and not women in the eyes of the law. That is as it should be, because that is how things are. You have not lost any rights in this decision, and women have retained and protected theirs. That’s not a tragedy, it’s a glorious vindication of the fucking obvious that should not have been necessary in the first place.
Also, I bet he has not had male people screaming at him to choke on lady dick.
BBC, how can you even say that? Of course the implications are clear! Did you even read the opinion? Where the Act says “sex” or “women” or “men,” it means biological sex. What could they have said to make it any more clear?
The Supreme Court also held that discrimination against someone because of their gender identity is also prohibited, but the acts proscribed have to be actually attributable to the person’s transgender status. The two might overlap when a transgender person is actually perceived as the opposite sex, and the discriminatory act was done because of Animus against perceived sex. The transgender person would have to actually pass as the sex they are not for that to apply. Trans identified men don’t generally pass as women. Trans identified women might have a better chance of passing as a man, but then, men are rarely the targets of sex discrimination.
What is “threatening” about the ruling for trans identified males? The major “threat” is that they don’t get to violate women’s boundaries any more. Wow, what a threat! They might feel “threatened,” ie., fearful of how other men in men’s bathrooms or locker rooms might treat them. That’s an issue of male-on-male violence. That’s a worry that has concerned insufficiently “masculine” men forever; it’s not unique to trans identified males. It’s a problem for the men to solve among themselves. They don’t get to use women as human shields. As between men and women, men have a better chance of protecting themselves against male violence than women do of protecting themselves against male violence. It’s the men’s problem, not women’s problem to solve at the expense of their own rights and safety.
Beyond that, what are trans identified men “threatened” with? Oh no! “Misgendering”! Ie., correctly identifying their sex. Deadnaming! Oh no, can’t hide former misdeeds behind a new name. Being looked at! Oh noes! People might look at a man funny for wearing so-called women’s clothes. Guess what? Men can wear whatever they want. They do it TO BE looked at; but now they don’t want people to look, because they don’t get the privilege of sticking it to women.
A “living hell” ? Really? Because people might look at him? Because someone might “say something” to him? It’s like that old saw about:
What are men afraid of? That someone might laugh at them.
What are women afraid of? Being raped and/or killed.
See the difference?
What nonsense the BBC is peddling after this ruling.
WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE 35 YEAR-OLD, NON-BINARY BINGO CALLERS?
They have to maintain the pretense of “unclarity” in order to avoid having to accept the fact that men are not women, and cannot become women. They want enough wiggle room to still allow men into women’s spaces. The altrnative is to admit that they were always wrong, and it seems they’re just not ready for that.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Some memberz of the […]
Yeah, but “intersex”, hence “sex is not binary”, hence any attempt to classify someone as one or the other based on physical characteristics is entirely arbitrary, hence self-ID wins by default. As we have seen there are already TIMs out there who claim to be biologically female. I still suspect this will be the next big thing. As I said, be prepared for arguments that female only spaces need to be inclusive of “all biological females”, both the “cis biological females” and the “trans biological females” (by which they don’t mean TIFs).
And, once again, I’m sure they will be able to find plenty of biologists *cough*PZ*cough* prepared to insist to the death that this is the most established fact in all of science.
iknklast #1
Had to look up Mister Brown and he is a large sturdy looking man. I doubt anybody is physically attacking him on the street. He looks like a man in a frock so maybe there are other men who might point and laugh at him, that I can believe. If having other men laugh at him upsets him, he can change how he dresses and blend in with his fellow men.
I’d like to know why trans identified males feel threatened. Threatened by whom? The entire justification for them invading women’s spaces is that they are afraid of men. Not women: men.
In the last 15 years, all the violent rhetoric and actual violence has come from the T brigade against women, and carried out largely by men (6the black pampers). Those masked, black-clad ninjas who do a lot of the harassing, banging, shouting down, pushing, shoving, assaulting and battering against women don’t appear to be transgender themselves; they’re not dressed in woman-face. They look like men who love being able to hate women in public and be cheered for it.
Who’s threatening these transgender blokes? It certainly isn’t women.
I’d like to see the receipts on that claim. Assaulted by whom? Man or woman? What were the circumstances? Was it because you were doing something you shouldn’t have been doing? You say “assault,” not battery; so you weren’t actually touched in any way? If he walked into a women’s washroom and got challenged by an actual woman, is that what he considers “assault”? I’d like to know a lot more before I believe anything about that claim.
And he doesn’t say that there has been any physical threat beyond the one instance of “assault.” His only other complaint is that he “experiences abuse” “almost daily.” As others have remarked, he thinks that being correctly identified as a man is “abuse.”
T claims of “feeling threatened” after the ruling is gaslighting. Nobody is threatening to them. They just don’t get to threaten women any more. Their favorite toy got taken away.
[…] a comment by maddog on Some memberz of the […]