Feeble
Talk about phoning it in – what a worthless contribution to discussion of the ruling:
Making trans women use male spaces will cause distress
Yes, thanks, we’re aware of Line One of the Trans Dogma Commands: they’re what we dispute and reject. We do not agree that men’s “distress” when women say no is a compelling or even halfway decent reason to let men take what belongs to women. Men’s presence in women’s toilets and organizations causes women distress, so how’s about you focus on that for a minute. You are a woman after all. Have some self-respect.
Plenty of people will perceive this clarification of meaning — or change of interpretation, as maintained by Melanie Field, who oversaw the drafting of the Equality Act in 2010 — as permission to be more openly hostile towards trans people, who are now “other” in the eyes of the law.
Well trans people are “other” – that’s the whole point. That’s why so many gullible fools like you pay so much attention to them. Mere women are just boring dreary old women but trans women are special, exciting, different – that’s why we’re required to pamper them and shield them from even the mildest summer breeze.
I’ve already seen the ruling wielded as evidence of the validity of anti-transgender sentiments. It will be used, even if that is not the intention, to stoke an already fiercely incandescent culture war.
Oh will it. Have you noticed, by any chance, the way trans activists and their ardent fans talk about women? Did you watch “Sophie Molly” calling JK Rowling “biiiiiitch” the other day, with all the glee of a little boy dropping his sister’s favorite toy into a sewer?
This is just the beginning. Forcing trans women to use male single-sex spaces, or trans men to use female single-sex spaces, will cause more distress than the present set-up.
Like hell it will. What you mean is it will cause more distress to a very small number of men, as opposed to causing more distress to millions of women. Why do you prefer the second option?
If; if I were in fact to have an opinion about “transwoman” in general, it would be based on what I know of the utterances and behaviour of those “transwoman”s I’ve seen and heard.
Why exactly should such an opinion (if I were to generalise), not be utterly contemptuous?
The behaviour of the public facing and attention seeking individuals concerned has been appalling. What conclusion is a random person supposed to arrive at, other than the desire to avoid these people?
Now, I am in fact able to discriminate and would like to think any future interactions with such individuals will be informed on a case by case basis.
But whose fault is it if some folk don’t have that approach? It may not be ‘right’ but most people in day to day life use stereotypes and personal experience to make conclusions about groups of other people including those they haven’t met or know of.
And of course there’s the ‘self outing’ issue. If all these “transwoman”s do in fact start using the correct facilities, in their dresses and lippy (which I believe they have a right to) a lot of men may realise just how many of them there have been all this time, hiding from them in women’s places. And they may have opinions about that!
My personal hope is that the future is civilised, that so called “female clothing” is accepted on men by all; only time will tell.