Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Some memberz of the communniny.

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, 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 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 they’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 torturers. 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 apparatus 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.

Jessica Brown, 45, has been “out” for about 20 years and says she has recently noticed a “huge uptick” in transphobia.

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.

She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

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.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

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, anonymous complainants. 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 on 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”. It 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.

All five in the Ipswich group say they are more anxious about the future following the court’s decision.

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.