The UK’s Anti-Trans Ruling Is a Defeat for All Women

Comments

• Emperor@feddit.uk ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Following the ruling, J.K. Rowling, the world’s richest author and perhaps its most prominent transphobe, tweeted a photo of herself enjoying a cigar and a bourbon on her $15 million superyacht, toasting what she called “TERF VE Day,” in reference to the acronym “trans-exclusionary radical feminism” and the surrender of German military operations that heralded “Victory in Europe” 80 years ago. “I love it when a plan comes together,” Rowling added.

  She’s become a Bond villain.

  Astonishingly, the ruling specifies that what it calls “women living in the male gender”—i.e., trans men, and cis women whose appearance is deemed masculine—“could also be excluded” alongside cis men, from women’s spaces. “Not being allowed into the mens by rule does not mean you have the right to go into the ladies,” clarified the leading anti-trans campaigner Maya Forstater; “That may seem unfair, but these are life choices people make. If you make extreme efforts to look like a man don’t be surprised if you are denied entrance to ladies.” Forstater’s comments underscore the ultimate goal of TERFs and other transphobes: to expunge trans people from public life.

  The mask slips there. Even amongst TERFs that has to be a minority opinion (right? Right?) as everyone has the right to go to the toilet, but it does demonstrate that some don’t see this ruling as an end point but just a foot in the door. One of my arguments against the ruling (or the misinterpretation of it) was that trans men will be forced into women’s toilets, changing rooms, etc and this would underline the absurdity of all of this and lead to push back against it, but it seems like some TERFs are already planning for that eventuality.

  And, again, who do they expect to police this? I spoke to the landlord of my local and he is pretty clear that everyone should use the toilet that best corresponds to the gender you look like, not necessarily from some high moral ground but because it causes the least fuss and bother.

  source

  • apis@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Majority view amongst TERFs, and yes, a foot in the door.

    Additionally, though the ruling places no onus on toilet* users, it does place obligations on toilet providers, and in any case will be used to harass and bully people who just need to pee in peace. Most of those who’ll be persecuted by TERFs & friends will be cis, many will be intersex, a tiny handful may be trans.

    In this sense your landlord is spot on, but he himself may find his business targeted for civil action under this new ruling on the interpretation of Equalities Act, should a TERF learn of his approach.

    Worse, toilet providers are now prohibited from abandoning gendered toilets in favour of unisex toilets - if they have a unisex toilet, they must also provide a ladies’ toilet.

    Am wondering how best to help our trans & intersex & gender non-conforming siblings, besides writing to representatives, and protests. Could we agree to use our much greater numbers to swiftly demonstrate through our own toilet selection that the law is an ass which must be amended (and reversed to the previous status quo pending that amendment).

    *using “toilet” throughout my reply as a placeholder for many single-sex spaces and not only toilets.

    source