Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 4:45 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 3:18 pm 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.

No it isn't. We have legislation and contingencies against all sorts of scenairos. It doesn't mean that those scenairos will happen.

Typical TRA tactic when you lose the case smear those who made the ruling.

Fuck me, I'm getting sick of this.

They attempted to clarify a rather badly worded piece of legislation. In my opinion they had no alternatives (see my earlier post).

Hysteria rarely helps...

Michael Foran lays out in detail what this ruling means and doesn't mean.

Who is Michael Foran and why should I take notice of his opinion?

Well he's a lecturer in public law at the university of Glasgow and his writing on this was cited in the court case. Hope that helps.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 6:35 pm
No it isn't. We have legislation and contingencies against all sorts of scenairos. It doesn't mean that those scenairos will happen.

I assume I have misunderstood here, because it appears you’re saying on the one hand people don’t take the small possibility of sexual assault by trans women on cis women seriously enough and dismiss it, but on the other hand you’ve easily dismissed a whole load of potential (and given the law change, likely) scenarios on the basis there are laws against them and so they may not happen.

I’m guessing that isn’t what you meant? Because obviously that would be so hypocritical it’d border on trolling!

You have misunderstood me. If I were a cynic I'd say you were operating in bad faith.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:07 pm You have misunderstood me. If I were a cynic I'd say you were operating in bad faith.

Ok…well what did you mean then? Because I’m not clear.

What I meant was you just can't dismiss the concerns women have around this.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:30 pm What I meant was you just can't dismiss the concerns women have around this.

Ok, yes. But that’s what I mean - I don’t think anyone is, and at the same time those concerns also have to be balanced against concerns regarding all the other possibilities.

You can’t just legislate based on one unlikely but possible worst case scenario. If for no other reason that many of the other issues will directly affect women as well.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 3:32 pm Not sure about that. My point was that if a man wants to corner a woman alone, he will try to do so.

Agreed. A predator will not be put off by the type of stick figure on the toilet door.

But as even some FTM trans people I know have said, the fact that this ruling legislates for hirstute, muscular, bearded trans blokes being mandated to use the ladies will create more safeguarding issues or unease in that respect than it'll solve by giving licence to bully any woman in there who doesn't look dainty enough.

But the femininity police and the wannabe genital fondlers aren't bothered about that, as has already been discussed.

Turn's out it's Ocado not for you.

Can you explain that? Once again I have no idea what you mean. And it’s getting tedious.

Given the judges said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, I assume TWA is pointing out that Sonia Sodha - a writer known for her strong anti-trans views - is wasting no time in both unpleasant gloating and bigging up that hotbed of reasonable opinion, Mumsnet. And as such, demonstrating there really are arseholes on both sides.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 9:34 am Given the judges said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, I assume TWA is pointing out that Sonia Sodha - a writer known for her strong anti-trans views - is wasting no time in both unpleasant gloating and bigging up that hotbed of reasonable opinion, Mumsnet. And as such, demonstrating there really are arseholes on both sides.

I think one side is starting to get a monopoly, though.

This is quite an interesting take by Lord Sumption - he thinks the ruling is being misinterpreted and it’s not an obligation to make single sex spaces based on birth sex but merely now an option that is not illegal. So e.g. the NHS could have a trans man on a men’s ward.

Given some campaigners have already said they intend to take organisations to court who they think are not complying with the law, expect to see this tested sooner rather than later.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 35828.html

So it is permissive legislation? I did think that.

I did originally see comments that post op transgender people would be considered as their 'destination' sex, but these seem to have been lost in the noise.

A pedant writes : Sumption, not Sumpter.