[kreuzberger]

You aren't who you are any more. That's the law.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

As expressed, the original legislation was vague, possibly intentionally so, and it now behoves parliament to clarify and regulate properly.

It seems to me to be wrong to ascribe malice in this decision; the flaw is in the original legislation and the unwillingness of parliament to clarify or redefine it.

[The Weeping Angel]

Of course these matters need ironing out.

Matters, mere "matters"? Ironing out? Ironing fucking out?

You lot got what you wanted, so please try to have the stones to acknowledge the unfolding clusterfuck which blinded you with your double-dip intellect blockers of wilful ignorance and pure hatred.

You should try getting off that high horse off yours once in a while.

[Crabcakes]

You aren't who you are any more. That's the law.

It’s the unsaid part that I find most miserable. Trans people are now going to be unable to use things like public toilets if they’re not unisex. So the unavoidable effect is some simply won’t go out as much, or be able to. They’re going to be more reluctant to access healthcare out of concern they will be placed on the ‘wrong’ ward and face abuse or be treated differently - for all health matters, not just ones related to gender. Jobs that require changing attire may be if not off limits then far more difficult for them, so it will curtail some work options.

The statement that ‘trans people should now advocate for their own spaces’ is as useless as a GRC has become - at best, it’s unlikely places like malls or council toilets will add gender neutral spaces overnight. At worst, it requires trans people to immediately identify themselves to use such facilities. And you can guess what sort of delightful characters might think it fun to lie in wait to see who uses the “tranny toilets”.

Every single aspect of this decision makes it harder for trans people to not only live their lives normally and do things we take for granted, but to even *be* in society. It’s exactly what some people pushing for this wanted - it makes them hide away and exist behind closed doors and essentially be ashamed of who they are.

As Malc has said, the decision itself does not come from malice. And as I’ve said, I sincerely hope it’s the start of the process to make things better.

What concerns me is those who will use the ruling as cover for malice.

[Abernathy]

As expressed, the original legislation was vague, possibly intentionally so, and it now behoves parliament to clarify and regulate properly.

It seems to me to be wrong to ascribe malice in this decision; the flaw is in the original legislation and the unwillingness of parliament to clarify or redefine it.

Agree with that. The situations that Crabs describes are indeed problematic, and will require resolution somehow. I can’t see any other way to do it other than to re-visit the EA2010. Lord knows how that can be achieved, and I’ll tell you what, I wouldn’t fancy the job for a gold clock.

[kreuzberger]

Lord Justice Wossissocks would have done well to have Crabbied it. He was right to highlight the legal illogicalities and contradictions but he couched those concerns in terms which were easy to ignore.

[davidjay]

Of course these matters need ironing out. Perhaps it's worth bearing in mind what Harriet Harman has to say on this ruling.

And as always there are some absolute charmers in the replies.

[Andy McDandy]

Things that strike me about the "trans debate".

1. The focus is almost entirely on MTF people, and not FTM.

2. Much of the worst case scenarios thrown up by TERFs are either addressed by current law, plausible regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, highly fucking unlikely, or all of the above.

3. There's not so much a streak of homophobia running through it, but a magnificent 10 lane highway with cracking roadside facilities. Boil all of it down and two themes keep popping up:

3A. "What would I do if I could get in the ladies space and have a perv".

3B. "What if I'm copping off with a woman and I touch a cock, and I like it?"

4. Gender is not just a matter of clothes or outward presentation. And you know who you are better than anyone else. The concept of being a 'convincing' man or woman is bullshit.

5. Considering the amount of grief trans people get, just for a moment think about what it means when a friend, relative or colleague shares with you their trans status. That is an enormous amount of trust and hope, that you will be the good friend they think you are. Don't let them down.

[Crabcakes]

Re: the focus on trans women. Data shows the numbers are pretty close, but the spotlight falls far more on them for a couple of reasons. The homophobia/assumed pervert reason for one, and the greater difficulty in passing is the other.

A muscular trans guy with a beard is unlikely to have people staring at him demanding to know if he has a cock, or commenting on his lack of Adam’s apple. And that’s the real reason behind so much of it - the “we can tell” thing*. Because it’s not really just “we can tell” and never has been, it’s “we can tell and we think it’s icky”.

*there are of course tons of examples of tiresome bigots _not_ being able to tell - either accusing cis people of being trans or not realising someone is trans. Because they’re really just engaging in an advanced form of body shaming.

[Crabcakes]

Of course these matters need ironing out.

Not to pick at this in particular, but I’d like to give you a real world example. My friend has a trans daughter, who also happens to have IBS. She has been in tears over this because she is so worried that she now won’t be able to go out with her friends or go on trips or holidays because of fear of being confronted in toilets and maybe even charged with breaking the law. And she also saw that guardian headline about BTP and is terrified that if she travelled by train someone could set her up so she was searched by male officers.

These aren’t trivial things to sort out with a quick round of emails after the bank holiday. These are decisions that curtail people’s lives in very real ways based on vanishingly small worst case scenarios.

[Abernathy]

A very thoughtful, considered, and compassionate piece here from Gaby Hinsliff. which I recommend reading :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sk2ZfHD1lg

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm not particularly impressed by Harriet Harman there. Couldn't that have been said earlier? I think it's incredible it's taken 15 years to be bitten on the arse.

[kreuzberger]

A very thoughtful, considered, and compassionate piece here from Gaby Hinsliff. which I recommend reading :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sk2ZfHD1lg

Hinsliff really does hit the mark, there. Further, I would suggest that there are shades of Niemöller here, insofar as many of us showed no great interest in this issue until now, despite the fact that Tufton Street and their rancid, weirdo yank mates are in the anti-trans box seat.

[The Weeping Angel]

I wish Catkins was here.

[The Weeping Angel]

2. Much of the worst case scenarios thrown up by TERFs are either addressed by current law, plausible regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, highly fucking unlikely, or all of the above.

Don't take this the wrong way Andy but the problem I have with this is the casual way you dismiss the risk of sexual assualt or worse. Just because something is illeagal it doesn't mean you make it easier for it to happen. The sheer dismissivness of this very real threat is typical of how so many progressive men approach this issue.

[Andy McDandy]

Not sure about that. My point was that if a man wants to corner a woman alone, he will try to do so. Meanwhile an MTF person using a male only space is at considerable risk from other men. I'm a man. Many men are arseholes. But not me. I'm so much worse...

So, in terms of risk vs risk, better to let the MTF people use the ladies (with their cubicles and lockable doors) than have them exposed to the very real risk of assault in the gents. And if one would be rapist in a dress tries anything, arrest and charge the cunt.

[Watchman]

This may seem as if I’m not being serious, and I may be tripping in conspiracy land; but is this a sop to the US, “look we’re doing something”

[Crabcakes]

Don't take this the wrong way Andy but the problem I have with this is the casual way you dismiss the risk of sexual assualt or worse. Just because something is illeagal it doesn't mean you make it easier for it to happen. The sheer dismissivness of this very real threat is typical of how so many progressive men approach this issue.

This is a rehash of the American gun nut’s gun excuse though (we all know the one: “I need a gun in case an armed thief breaks into my home”). It’s legislating based on one very unlikely scenario and ignoring multiple other scenarios, some equally harmful and/or some considerably more likely, to reach the desired outcome. In the gun nut’s case, it’s justification to own a gun. In this case, it’s rollback of rights for trans people.

Is it possible a man could deliberately attempt to pretend to be a trans woman to access a women’s only space with criminal intent? Sure, it’s *possible*.

What’s also possible though are these - and while some of these may have happened anyway with no change in the law, some are now much, much more likely to happen, not least of which because some people will use the change in law as cover to be bolder with their behaviour:
- a man pretends to be a woman and accesses a woman’s only space with criminal intent anyway
- a man doesn’t bother to even pretend to be a woman and accesses a woman’s only space with criminal intent anyway
- a trans woman/man forced into using a space designated for their previous gender is subjected to verbal/physical abuse even though they are complying with the law
- a cis man/woman who does not meet another person’s subjective view of looking suitably male/female is subjected to verbal/physical abuse for using male/female only spaces they have every right to use
- a trans woman/man has no facilities available to them to use safely and legally
- a trans woman/man, as a result of a lack of facilities they feel safe using, simply does not access the service or facility they now feel is off limits to them. If this is a lack of public toilets stopping them visiting a mall, you could dismiss this as inconvenience. If this is feeling unsafe accessing NHS care, it could lead to much worse health outcomes.

It’s not being dismissiveness of a harmful scenario. It’s weighing the possibility of that scenario coming to pass vs. all the harms from all the other scenarios that become more likely to occur.

[The Weeping Angel]

This may seem as if I’m not being serious, and I may be tripping in conspiracy land; but is this a sop to the US, “look we’re doing something”

No it isn't.

[Abernathy]

This may seem as if I’m not being serious, and I may be tripping in conspiracy land; but is this a sop to the US, “look we’re doing something”

No it isn't.

Indeed. I don’t think we’re quite that desperate to curry favour with the orange crook, and besides, the government has no direct control over the judiciary, so it couldn’t happen.