Aren’t the front pages and headlines glorious!

Law is an artificial construct. It isn’t a measure of what is true. Law made homosexuality illegal, until society recognised that the law was inhumane and changed it to reflect a better understanding of human sexuality.

There are plenty of responses on here that show that many people believe that this is a simple matter of biology, and anyone who experiences their gender differently can be dismissed as talking rubbish or lying.

Rights come with responsibilities. The law needs to reflect that.

I’m on the email mailing list for Independent Women, sent out by The Independent. I’m not sure if it’s acceptable to quote the whole of the comment from the Voices editor, Victoria Richards, but here are the first and last phrases in the opening paragraph:

It's never been harder to be a woman...

a startling Supreme Court ruling has effectively outlawed and excluded trans women from all public spaces.

Thanks @Greyskybluesky I do read German.
That is such a biased article, and the comments, blimey.

Law drafted for 'nuance' is bad law. We don't write the law around feelings, subjective stances, strawman or special interest groups. Writing law for feelings distorts the judgement. And what a shockingly clear and obvious point of judgement this was.

A report in Tagesspiegel here if you read German, somewhat hidden away in their "Queer" section 🙄Unsurprisingly it focuses on the trans perspective, not women's.

Headline:
'Supreme Court Ruling: Transwomen are not legally considered women in the UK. Only "biological women" are protected in the Equality Act.'

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/queerspiegel/urteil-des-obersten-gerichtshofes-trans-frauen-gelten-in-grossbritannien-rechtlich-nicht-als-frauen-13550743.html

Wilderness? What do you mean by that?

I’m still buzzing from it all. I always knew we were right but feel particularly vindicated now. And Arsenal beating Real Madrid again was the icing on the cake!

If you say so, it's also entirely true.

What nuanced understanding of sex do we need?

That is a very - VERY- unscientific response.

Love that the definitive quote they published was from a man. I like the GLP but they’ve got it wrong on this.

Also – why does it have to entail fewer rights for trans people? I think it’s important trans people do have rights and protections, but it doesn’t mean the difference between sex and gender needs to be collapsed.

To be fair the Telegraph has campaigned on this issue for a very long time, but of course as it's seen as the Torygraph it never got the kudos it deserves from many left-leaning people.

On a different note, it's interesting to see how the TRAs are swerving their argument. Suddenly they are talking about trans men and toilets. Where were they before - mostly invisible? If not that then it's a right wing plot because Trump....they really are clutching at straws.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment still remains. People with a GRC have the same protection from discrimination and harassment as they ever did. The ruling simply clarifies who is included in protections given to people by dint of their sex.

Women should be relieved. People with a GRC will be fine, and if they aren't they should campaign for whatever they need (although not at the expense of women).

Perverts and chancers should be worried.

What took them so long?

Fortunately no-one is left in the wilderness - we just have clarity established on what has always been the law / common sense / biological fact / etc.

This hand-wringing and pretending that suddenly a sector of society is cast adrift with no home is of course nonsense - let's clarify it for those who haven't worked it out:

Man = man
Transwoman = man
Woman = woman
Transman = woman

everyone else - look up your birth certificate (assuming you haven't changed it!) - the doctors do a good job at identifying your sex when you are born and as it can't change - that is what you are still...

and as everyone is either man or woman - society is beautifully constructed to meet your needs - we have male and female toilets / schools / dormitories / sports teams / etc. some things we do together, but if we do things separately (e.g. sport where being a man gives you an advantage over women physically) then whatever you were born - your biological sex - that is your group

so there is no group without a home - transwomen (still shouting the loudest!) have a home with all other men - and we welcome them - you can be part of our teams / use our loos / sleep in our dormitories / go to our schools / join our groups - because you are men and so are we - we welcome you - you will never be homeless.

Look, I'm a biologist, MSc, PhD, two postdocs, research career for the past 30ish years, and I have been part of this conversation since the first time someone claimed that sex isn't binary and it's more complex, blah and without fail, the moment a TRA uses the word "nuanced" what follows is utter bollocks.

I enjoyed this piece in the Guardian; basically toys being thrown out of prams https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/16/supreme-court-definition-woman-judges-law

Has anyone looked how the international press reported this? I saw an article in Spigel+ (where they called the UK "England" in the few sentences I could reacd) but I can't access it.

According to the wide range of trans activists across various platforms, this ruling is either genocide or a complete non-entity that isn’t going to change anything because no one is going to be checking. The fact these two positions exist from the same side shows how absolutely nonsensical their cause is.

It’s hilarious.

In answer to the OP, no. It’s horrible.

We need proper solutions based on a deeper and more nuanced understanding of gender/sex. Not rulings that leave a minority in the wilderness.

As Gender and Gender Identity have replaced Sex in the Aus Anti Discrimination Act (thanks, Julia Gillard!), it would have to be rewritten again. And what with the Women’s Commissioner not knowing what a woman is, and the Tickle v Giggle judge claiming in his ruling that sex can be changed - there’s a long way to go yet… Still, some glimmerings of hope I guess.

Oh and can we also please take a moment to luxuriate in how RARE it is to see middle aged women, with ordinary middle aged woman bodies, celebrating their success on the front page of ANY newspaper?

It's striking because it's RARE!

Worth noting that the Daily Mail has a proud history of taking up unpopular but just causes.

It was the only paper to call out the cover up and injustice in the murder of Stephen Lawrence, exposing the real killers. It continued to campaign with Doreen for justice for Stephen, even though its journalists and editor were receiving credible death threats and threats of violence from the killers and their families.

The Mail then spent years campaigning for a full and fearless investigation of institutional racism in the Met Police, which was finally granted and led to root and branch policing reform.

I also admired the way in which the Mail took up the cause of David Kelly, highlighting the bullying and harrassment he received from the Government (Alastair Campbell and the BBC).

The Guardian and the BBC toed the line on both these issues and showed themselves comprehensively on the wrong side of history. As in the trans issue,

VIALS UR FUR DIMWITS

Damn right.