Should women be awarded medals if they lost to Transwomen in UK sport since 2010?

Nothing about the ruling (I agree with the ruling fully by the way) means that sporting body rules are unlawful. This is being so wildly misunderstood.

That won't happen either as that brigade appear to be doubling down

Many female competitors are owed a big apology for the way their legitimate concerns were dismissed by the "you're a transphobic hater and need to educate yourself" brigade.

Of course they should where it is feasible, I'm betting this won't happen though 🙄

Oops I mean you are being reasonable!! The votes will include my stupidly pressing unreasonable

Well yes, of course.
Always the problem.

Yes. Where possible, we need retrospective adjustments that give women back what they earned. This is not a change to the law. It’s a clarification of what was already the law.

No, it is not. But lots of people in this thread and others are assuming that this ruling means X, when the ruling is very specific. It will have broader implications, but the actual specifics are likely to be ironed it through a combination of legislation and further legal cases.

Whether anything will ever be done about it is another matter. But it is certainly unlawful (and always was, it’s just that it wasn’t successfully challenged at the time via legal means).

Park Run is not an elite sport. It is an amateur running club. As long as they are clear they are trans-inclusive, they can remain so. Or they can have no records if they prefer.

When it comes to sporting bodies, it is less clear what the ruling means.

There's some good analysis on BBC Sports on this.

And I did not say it does. The law is not just the contents of this ruling.

That is not what this ruling says...

Would be good if the women’s park run records held by trans identifying men were also stripped, but I’m not holding my breath.

As stated - you would need to take further legal action to clarify past actions.

I do not think you understand how legal clarifications work. You cannot retroactively apply this ruling to past actions taken in 'legal good faith' without taking further court action and specifically referencing this case. And then, the courts decide if the action was appropriate or not, and if not if any remedy is required.

Yes they should be given the medals in a televised medal ceremony, results changed on all websites and official sporting documents

How common is it? I have done an admittedly quick google search and am struggling to find who it affects. Lots of articles quote 900 but this looks to be people twisting statistics to fit their purpose. I can only find one transgender person who has actually won a medal.

whereas I can find several examples of where athletes have been accused of being transgender due to their looks/ abilities but genetic testing has proven that they are biologically female. The danger with going through previous medal winners is that you can pick on biological women just because they don’t look feminine enough and then put them through the undignified ordeal of having to prove it.

You are correct up to a point. However I suspect that those bodies had not updated any rules, to be clear that the category was mixed sex (as opposed to for women) during this period.

+Sporting bodies who decided - especially those who stated so - that they were trans-inclusive before this ruling did not break any rules, nor did any action they made in awarding or not awarding medals to trans athletes become void. Those are historic actions. What happens post this ruling is a matter for sporting bodies, updated guidance from the EHCR, and if people do choose the courts to decide.*

If they ran men’s events and women’s events advertised as such and included trans women as women, I think there’s a case to be answered in that women’s sports provision does fall under the Equalities Act and therefore the definition of woman applies. If they ran men’s events and an open event - ie men, women, trans people - that’s different, but that’s not what they did.

It’ll be interesting to see how Parkrun deal with the ruling.

This isn’t correct. If the rules were unlawful, and if the events were labelled as women’s events but were in fact open to males, then the whole thing was ultra vires and should not stand.

The original plan was to give his jerseys to the second place riders but it became very clear very quickly that there were a whole lot of riders who also “probably”, “maybe” or “possibly” were also performance enhanced and there was no fair way to award them.

Except his winning was purged from the record and he was sued for millions in earnings wasn’t he?

It's not always that simple though.
It would work in something like a race.
But eg in tennis, which particular person who was knocked out deserves the medal. It could be the first round loser actually should have got through to the final.

But I'd agree about removing the "records". That would be easy to do.

You are talking nonsense. That is simply not what the Supreme Court ruling says, or means. That is not how our judicial process works either.

There are lots of areas, especially in civil legislation, where the law is open to interpretation. It is only when an upper court (not a lower court) makes a specific ruling on the understanding of what that legislation means that the understanding of law is clarified and updates made. Sporting bodies who decided - especially those who stated so - that they were trans-inclusive before this ruling did not break any rules, nor did any action they made in awarding or not awarding medals to trans athletes become void. Those are historic actions. What happens post this ruling is a matter for sporting bodies, updated guidance from the EHCR, and if people do choose the courts to decide.

So you are saying you think that passage means that UK institutions can ignore the law, use a different definition of sex when offering single sex services and discriminate against women because they don’t want to apply the Equality Act?