This is bad logic and not how safe guarding works. Women are at risk from predatory men, men who would use any loophole to get easy access to their victims. It's kind of like saying burglars will burgal anyway so no one should lock their houses or get an alarm.

The type of access you're giving men by allowing self ID (AKA allowing any man at all to simply say they are a woman) is access to women for example who are in prison and would have no way at all to remove themselves from a very dangerous situation should some rapist declare he's a woman upon his arrest.

What you're taking away from women and girls is the right to complain and raise the alarm if some creepy dude is hanging around the women's changing room but says "I'm a woman" when approached.

Yes predatory men will find victims but we don't make that easier for them and limit ways for women to make themselves safer. We don't allow them unrestricted access to women when they're at their very most vulnerable ie in a state of undress or unable to leave because it's a prison..

Yep.

I do appreciate that POV, but why are Trans women being held responsible for the actions of cis men? Why are they having their own protections removed for the safety of others for which the perpetrators are not them? Why are they collateral damage?

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...DL_400x400.jpg

Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins

Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as . . . a woman.
Congratulations.

And “The concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man”. Yes,
the science was settled in the Precambrian. Nice that the law has finally caught
up.

Yes this statement was interesting, too. They just erased Intersex people and then talk about science... huh.

with all due respect it isn't women's responsibility either to give up our safe guards to shield transwomen from predatory men.

Nobody is intersex. Humans aren’t inter-anything. They’re all male or female.


Intersex is not an identity but a congenital birth defect

Intersex people are still male or female, there is no third sex.

Tbh it's usually the children the bad ones go for.

Women were expected to be the collateral damage for a teeny tiny percentage of the population who identify themselves as trans women, we were told to use the disabled toilets, that we didn't need to have penis free spaces even in domestic refuges, that we had to accept trans women who had gone through male puberty in womens sports, ...women represent over 50 per cent of the population, it is only right that womens spaces are protected do you not think? Whilst I agree trans women have a right to feel safe too, their rights do not take precedence over women and this includes lesbian women. I understand genuine transwomen will be upset over this judgement but it is the right call in my opinion even going on purely population

You're right, but, as we've established, allowing Trans women to use women's bathrooms isn't sacrificing biological women's safety because trans women aren't at risk and any cis man who wants to attack a woman will do it anyway.

There isn't an epidemic of cis men cosplaying as women to attack women, the stats do not support it.

Between 2013 - 2023, the number of rape/sexual offences in the UK that took place in a public bathroom was 210 over a 10 year period. That's 21 cases a year. So approximately 0.010% of all cases. The effort is being concentrated in the wrong place.

That's precisely my point, it's biological and it's just been erased by saying biological sex is binary.

Intersex refers to individuals born with sex characteristics (chromosomes, hormones, genitals, or internal reproductive organs) that do not fit typical male or female definitions

It exists, in science, and now somehow doesn't.

I've covered most of this above really.

I do agree with you in terms of the sporting aspect, someone born a man who went through puberty and hasn't taken any medication, such as HRT, to reduce testosterone levels, etc... to fall more in line with a biological women's levels shouldn't be allowed to compete professionally.

But again it feels like there is such a heavy focus on something so minimal. In the US, out of 500,000 college athletes, about 10 of them are trans.

The issue is there's not really anyway to tell which transwomen are genuine and which are not especially when you're talking about self ID. The whole point is they are all biological men and the way safeguarding works is to ban all men to protect women and girls.

Also you made a point in a previous post asking why transwomens protections are being removed for the safety of others, why is it OK for you to raise that as a point but when it's asked the other way round we're told women are going to be attacked anyway so what difference does it make to allow that safe guarding to be lowered

Well done to the judges.
A victory for common sense.

I raised it as a point because trans women are being made to take the responsibility for something they're not guilty of, so it's an unjust removal of rights and freedoms based on the actions of cis men.

I don't think I did say "what difference does it make to allow the safe guarding to be lowered", I said it won't make a difference to the safety of cis women because the people it's removing from the space aren't the perpetrators of what it is that is making women unsafe in those spaces.

If that's the comment you're referencing I don't see how one negates the other.

I think that's what you're referring to but I'll be honest I am tired now so I am not sure if I've misunderstood the comment you're referencing, feel free to quote the part you are questioning :)

Yes that's the comment I was refrencing.

I feel maybe we're going round in circles here because you're not accepting (I guess) that all biological men (this includes transwomen) are taking the responsibility for the "bad ones" and there is no way to know which ones aren't a danger to women and which are so they are all excluded.

Fair enough. You are correct, I refuse to accept trans women are the same as cis men. I refuse even moreso when the subject is surrounding safety towards women and one group is safe and one group is not so much, and yet it's the safe group that is being persecuted as a way to protect women further, while the less safe group get to continue to live as they have been.

Appreciate the debate as always.

Yes, same to you, it can been a difficult and emotive topic to discuss I know

Personally I think if transwomen and women were left alone to debate this topic reasonably, it would get sorted, but there are too many activists and men ready to shout TERF to drown out any debate that it just goes around in circles, as a woman I don't want to see any transwoman disadvantaged in any way, but I also equally do not want women disadvantaged and the evidence is clear, women have lost their jobs, their places on podiums, their scholarships, their safe spaces, their refuges ...I dont see any disadvantages on the other side??

like with all political causes, there are bad actors involved that are hellbent on deliberately manipulating the system and therefore common norms for their own benefit. It's no accident that so many top companies took up the cause, they earned money from it.

It's pretty sad that it required the supreme court to make a ruling as law that simply follows scientific reality

Thank you

It's 100% the right decision in terms of safeguarding and in terms of legal clarity e.g. diversity and inclusion statistics - ultimately it had to be this way or there's total chaos.

That said, while I agree with the decision, I also these days have to acknowledge that it will be celebrated/agreed with "for the wrong reasons" by a large group of people, in a more pointed and agenda-driven manner, as a "victory against woke" that has nothing to do with the actual issue. That will come mainly from people who don't give a **** about safeguarding and to be frank who are often the LAST people I'd have around women and children, rather than the vast majority of trans people. For that reason I'm wary of not acknowledging the double-edged sword. Again though legally it is 100% the right decision and (hopefully) can be the start of some more sensible/reasonable legislation that protects everyone.

Scottish Greens
not happy with this rule.

Live on SkyNewsHD Politics show

These nasty misguided activists no one cares for or listens too

Thankfully