So the 'hard won' in place of the more accurate imo 'over-reach' or 'male entitlement' comes across as sympathetic to males at the expense of females. Aka 21st century patriarchy where males are valued more highly than females. So accrue more power, empathy, 'access' etc.

Show Post

The Supreme Court highlighted in particular the detriments to female people (lesbians & transmen) of a 'certificated sex' interpretation of the law. Lesbians would have to include male lesbians in same sex attracted services & associations. TM would lose right to pregnancy & maternity protections.

Show Post

Also useful as per feminist analysis to distinguish between males (TW) & females (TM) with trans identities. TW might have lost access, not ofc rights; but TM generally did not access male sport/prisons/ refuges etc given fairness & safety issues. Reveals the asymmetric rights claims being made.

Show Post

Ok, makes sense. It would have been useful to explain the distinction in the piece, given there is widespread misinformation claiming trans people (meaning asymmetrically males with trans identities) have lost rights (to lesbian & female provisions) they did not have in the first place.

Show Post

Look forward to seeing you later!

Show Post