Politicians respond to the SC judgement

Mhairi has always had a somewhat tentative grip on reality.

It’s the only logical conclusion!

Does that mean the Communists are literal nazis?

Thanks @fromorbit I love their statement. And thankful to be honest - I’m sick of having people, who should know me better (who like me actually are left wing) calling me a right wing Trump sympathiser and more.

Thanks for sharing @fromorbit. I'm gutted the Communist Party aren't standing in my local area, I'm really struggling on who to vote for, I'm generally quite left-leaning and they've always been on the side of material reality.

Thanks @OvaHere

Hooray for common sense

Joint Statement from the Political Committee of the Communist Party, the Central Committee of the Young Communist League, the CP & YCL Women’s Commissions on the UK Supreme Court ruling that "sex" means biological sex in the Equality Act 2010.

We welcome the Supreme Court's clarification that "sex" means biological sex in the Equality Act 2010 in the case For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) 16 April 2025. The Supreme Court judgement was decided on the basis that the only coherent legal interpretation of the provisions defined in the Equality Act relating to sex discrimination was by reference to biological sex, upholding women's legal right to single-sex provision in employment, education facilites, sports, prisons, etc This materialist outcome corroborates our view that “sex” must mean biological sex for the purposes of the Act and any other interpretations would negate its single sex statutory protections.

We reject any notion that the Supreme Court ruling was influenced by, or issued as a result of, a transphobic political climate and note Lord Hodge’s remark when delivering the judgement - that it should not be seen as victory of one side over another. We oppose misrepresentations of the ruling causing anxiety and division. Trans people continue to have protection against discrimination and harassment within the Equality Act and “In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, a trans woman can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived to be a woman.”

We reiterate that efforts must be made to improve resourcing within the current system for trans people to access the health and welfare services they need across Britain and that the Communist Party will continue to call for these. For Women Scotland, in winning their case against the Scottish government, have provided legal clarification for women and girls in the fight to assert and defend single sex provision in Britain, and we commend them. ENDS.

Hopefully we've seen the back of that one. How much more light can they want than a very through judgement delivered by five Supreme Court Justices?

Unless they're now waiting for the second coming and the ultimate pronouncement on whether God thinks women have a penis.

Light and heat..... has anyone yet managed to pin down what a speaker actually means when they pop that one out?

It's the modern version of supercalifragalistic.

'Light and heat'!!! 😡

While we're still waiting to hear from Starmer, this article summarises his gender journey

https://archive.ph/qANVl

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/17/how-starmer-changed-his-tune-on-trans-women/

Although I think the final sentence is far too kind to him.

Al Pinkerton (my bloody MP) of the Lib Dem's burbling on LBC.
https://x.com/lbc/status/1912594352750092634?s=61&t=fqBIlp0gCJVNmzgyV_wlSQ

It's still there. Just go to the home page.

Can't get that Tom Slater link to open. Maybe it's been taken down?

Anyway, the bit that resonates with me in the Brendon O'Neill is the last 48 hours wailing is the "death rattle".

My God, that was years of pent up righteous anger having joyous release 😁

Little bit slow of me to realise that those lamenting the SC ruling are using typical cult behaviour (again) to tell the "trans community" that it's a bad world out there and people are doing this to hurt you. That's the narrative that must continue to be pushed.

Initially I was thinking how damaging it is actually to those who call themselves trans to run with the idea that the ruling affects trans rights.

I used to be very pro proportional representation. The Scottish Government - particularly the Greens - demonstrated to me how it can cause huge problems through 'electing' people who don't actually have a direct link to voters.

Not in O'Neill's article but I am liking the concept of an 'All fee, no win' barrister

Regarding kids, now is the time to test all of the ridiculous Stonewall interpretations that have infected the public discourse.

The gender recognition act doesn't allow anyone under 18 to apply for reassignment, so while there is a provision for someone who "intends" to apply for a GRC, I don't believe it should be possible for a young person to "intend" to undertake a process that they are legally unable to do.

No child should ever have the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment".

The judgement is clear that it applies to girls and women and boys and men for the protected characteristic of sex.
It is also clear that for gender reassignment the comparator group is men/boys or women/girls of the same biological sex.
So a child who wished to identify as a boy but is biologically female should not be discriminated against for wishing to present as a boy in an all female school.
That is how I read the judgement, but I am still only as far as paragraph 223 so I caveat my interpretation with that. But it seems perfectly clear to me.

The BBC article linked above says that the ruling means that ‘people who are born male no longer have access to female-only facilities and services’.

This is pernicious reporting because the ruling simply clarifies that who are born male should not ever have had access to female-only facilities and services. The language here feeds into a narrative that the ruling has taken something away from trans people. It has not. It has clarified that such access was not ever legal.

I also worry about the part that Scotgov will outline its plans in the coming days. They don’t have a record of reasoned thought on this.

A child can’t have a GRC.

Biology is important and the SC knows that TWAM.

Hope that sorted his thought process. HTH

I was listening to some American podcast and something that came up is politicians making pledges to special interest groups in order to get elected. I do wonder how many of the politicians doubling down today have longstanding connections that they can’t reverse ferret from so have to stick with it.