• gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    “But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another - it is not.”

    Yes it is. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t have said this to assure people:

    The Supreme Court said trans people - whether trans women or men - would not be disadvantaged by its decision as the Equality Act afforded them protection against discrimination or harassment.

    The UK has already created a “scapegoat class” of people whose appearance makes their minority status obvious in many cases and those who were rightfully reprimanded for unlawful discrimination are now retroactively suing their former employers.

    In an example of the ruling’s potential impact, a Scottish health organisation that is being sued by a nurse it suspended over her response to a trans woman using a female changing room said it had noted the judgment.

    This type of thing is going to further affect trans people’s access to homeless shelters and healthcare, at minimum. I wonder what’s going to happen when the cis women realize that banning trans people from their spaces didn’t actually fix anything and their husbands, boyfriends, and colleagues are still groping, beating, and forcing themselves on them.

    • GiveOver@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      These statements make it all the more maddening. How can you say it’s not a triumph for one side while they literally toast champagne on your doorstep. Fucking old cunts, you know you’ll all be dead soon and we’ll just change the law anyway.

    • rah@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      I wonder what’s going to happen when the cis women realize that banning trans people from their spaces didn’t actually fix anything and their husbands, boyfriends, and colleagues are still groping, beating, and forcing themselves on them.

      That’s ridiculous. Why would you think that the TERFs believed that banning trans people would stop all groping, beatings or rape? They’re defending their safe spaces. They want the safe spaces for a reason.

      • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I am aware of the reality that banning trans people doesn’t stop abuse. I am rhetorically musing about how the people who genuinely believe this may react upon learning their problems have not been magically solved by the vocal radfems pushing the notion that trans women are unsafe.

        You know, like the Trump voters who were shocked that he cut social spending because they’re living paycheck-to-paycheck? A “leopards ate my face” moment.

        Is there an explicit vent space for trans people to talk about this topic? I am sick of being criticised for being upset that the world seems to hate my existence and trying to deal with it through commentary.

        • rah@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          I am aware of the reality that banning trans people doesn’t stop abuse.

          It seems like you’re talking about something different. Originally, you were talking about cis people who thought banning trans people would stop their husbands, etc., being abusive. In other words, that banning trans people would stop all abuse. It seems like what you’re talking about here is something different: not all abuse but only some abuse.

          the people who genuinely believe this may react upon learning their problems have not been magically solved

          Why do you think there are people who believe that banning trans people will stop all abuse?