Ada

Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you

You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.

I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback

Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.

Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people

“I think people should have respect” isn’t something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.

Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women’s safety, as if trans women aren’t part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.

And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.

The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don’t just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.

I’m also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven’t become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.

That’s why

Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.

I’m asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that’s what really matters.

Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.

That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…

There will not be any corrective steps anytime soon, because the UK government, who would need to implement those steps, is actively disinclined to make them, because even though it’s less transphobic than the previous government, it is still doing transphobia for political reasons.

This is a setback for immediate protections, but my view is that this isn’t necessarily bad in the long term, so long as corrective steps are taken to address the root issue.

There will be no corrective steps.

it should spur on actually solving the issues

It won’t, because it was brought about to achieve the exact opposite

Why would I care what your uninformed opinion on my response to oppression is?

Judges hear the case that’s brought, not the agenda of the groups that bring things.

Uh huh.

If that were true, this wouldn’t be an overturning of a previous ruling on appeal. If this were not influenced by political bias, you wouldn’t get different results in different courts. Judges wouldn’t be “conservative” or “progressive”. Judges wouldn’t nearly all be straight, elderly and white.

They are though, because the appointment process is shaped by political perspectives, because the acceptable rulings are shaped by political perspectives and the cases that get seen and funded are shaped by political perspectives.

The fact that no trans people were called during the trial is shaped by politics.

The judges chose to read and rule that sex is “biological” and binary, despite the legislation making no mention of it being biological, and despite the biological understanding of sex being that is very much not binary… All of that, you guessed it, shaped by politics…

That’s really all I have to say about that part.

Good for you. Trans people don’t have that choice.

If this were protecting trans people, it wouldn’t have been brought to court by a transphobic group, or the win celebrated by them.

This actively excludes trans folk from vital protections and exposes them to environments that increase their risk of violence.

There’s no context that makes this anything other than incredibly damaging to trans folk