Welcome news, but unfortunate that the WI had to be compelled by the threat of legal action to follow the law and do the right thing.
24 karma · joined January 21, 2025
This illustrates the safeguarding risk in allowing males to use female spaces on the basis of simply saying that they identify as female. It ends up with situations like this: a registered sex offender pleasuring his erect penis in a shower area that young girls are using, and a reluctance of the authorities to stop him and file charges because they're in the thrall of policy that deems self-declared gender identity to be unquestionable.
> are you suggesting that if you can find one male sexual predator, it justifies equating all males with predators
For the purposes of safeguarding, yes. This is much of the reason why we have female-only spaces in the first place, as a preventative against male predation.
Not all males are predatory, but one can be quite sure that the subset of males who disregard and ignore women's and girls' boundaries are. Including the sex offender being discussed in that Twitter conversation. And any other male who demands access to female spaces.
> https://xcancel.com/jk_rowling/status/1972054407148695732
Consider what this conversation was actually about - a male sexual predator, caught pleasuring himself in the showers attached to a girls' changing room, who claimed, when caught, to have a female gender identity:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2025/06/01/imane-khelif-m...
https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2025/6/1/xxyetyl1aewfij...
https://lecorrespondant.net/docteur-suis%e2%80%91je-un-homme...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/imane-khelif-eindhoven-ne...
The evidence indicates that Khelif is male, with male physiological advantage, and therefore should never have been competing in women's boxing. And it is a matter of record that Khelif withdrew from the Eindhoven Cup rather than take the sex verification tests required to compete.
That proposed lawsuit mentioned in your BBC article near the end of 2024 went nowhere, by the way. How could it? The facts show there was no libel.
The reasons that women and girls are provisioned with female-only spaces are entirely different from the reasons behind the racist exclusion and segregation of black people in a white oppressor society.
It seems that you made this analogy without really thinking about it in any depth.
> (yeah, those n***s want to eat in our restaurants and swim in our public pools, have decent schools and even be allowed to buy houses near us! Why should they get special rights like that?)
Are you sure this analogy holds up when you're comparing it to males demanding access to female-only spaces?
Seems to be very different by every relevant metric.
You may be surprised. Have you heard about "transmaxxing"? This involves men deliberately transitioning, with the end goal of passing themselves off as women, because they feel it's better than inceldom.
It's not just the right who are skeptical of this idea. Like what does "body and mind have a different gender" even mean when you look at the detail of it?
> And that is only based on rumors and Imane Khelif's looks.
This is inaccurate. A lab report showing that Khelif has an XY karotype, and extracts from Khelif's medical file describing a male-only disorder of sex development (5-ARD), were leaked to journalists.
Kirk talked about this from a conservative perspective but it's more a women's rights and competitive fairness issue than anything else.
Not really. Each of these conditions can be understood and described in terms of male and/or female sex development. The "spectrum" rhetoric obfuscates detail.
> the traits that society-at-large attributes to the sexes
This is just sexist stereotyping though. Doesn't mean you're neither woman nor man if you don't adhere to these stereotypes. That's absurd.
The problem with "non-binary" is that it is inherently sexist in the worldview it describes.
The irony here is that concepts like "living as a man" and "living as a woman" are inherently sexist.
To take female puberty as an example, this is the growth and development of the uterus, ovaries, labia and breasts to reach their mature form and function. Most importantly, the menstrual cycle begins, making pregnancy possible.
If a boy has testosterone blocked and is given estrogen instead, he doesn't experience any of this, except perhaps some breast tissue growth and redistribution of fat. His penis and testicles will not develop further and he will probably remain sterile.
However, he doesn't have a female reproductive system, so this is not more similar to female puberty. What he's experiencing is stunted male development, a pharmaceutically-induced eunuch state.
There is no option for him to go through female puberty rather than male puberty, because he lacks the type of reproductive system that would make this possible. As female puberty is not an experience available to him, it makes no sense to describe male puberty as being the "wrong puberty" for him.
Likewise for girls and the impossibility of experiencing male puberty.
> Besides, she can't meaningfully consent to medically delaying puberty, anyway.
Yes, indeed she can't.
This is disinformation that is easily shown to be false if you read the final report.
In fact this lie was so widely disseminated that the authors felt they had to address it in the FAQs on the Review website: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r...
> Did the Review reject studies that were not double blind randomised control trials in its systematic review of evidence for puberty blockers and masculinising / feminising hormones?
> No. There were no randomised control studies identified in the systematic reviews, but other types of studies were included if they were well designed and conducted.
This conception of the "wrong puberty" as something that needs to be blocked is as absurd as all that "born in the wrong body" ideological nonsense.
Most importantly, children can't meaningfully consent to having their sexual function permanently damaged.
How does it benefit women to allow men who say they have womanly feelings into such spaces? It doesn't - and that's why they are excluded, along with all other men.
In the real-life conversations I've had about this issue, most people are horrified when they find out that men, transferred to women's prisons due to trans activist policy, have been sexually assaulting and raping female inmates. Keeping in mind that this isn't a hypothetical about what might happen but is a direct result of harmful policy, and involves documented cases and real victims.
It tends to prompt a rethink about this whole topic.
This is demonstrably true in many scenarios. Such as, males being transferred to women's prisons because they say they are women. As a consequence, female prisoners have been sexually assaulted and raped by these men. Drawing attention to this isn't misandry, it's reality.
The Supreme Court ruling will also ensure that males are not present in women's prisons, women's hospital wards, women's sports, domestic violence refuges for women, and many other spaces designated as being single-sex.
It also confirms that, in law, sexual orientation is defined in terms of sex. One of the intervenors in the case included lesbian groups who were concerned that legal recognition of the rights of lesbian women would be rendered meaningless if heterosexual males could simply identify as such.
As for bathrooms, they are one of the few facilities for which access is based on trust. The activists who insist that they're going to use opposite-sex bathrooms regardless of what the law says are confirming that they can't be trusted to respect boundaries and stay out. Which says a lot really.
The Supreme Court judgment makes this very clear: if you're male, having a Gender Recognition Certificate doesn't make it okay for you to be in a female-only space. And those without a certificate shouldn't be there either. Service providers who insist otherwise can be held legally liable.