Is it just me or do the BBC keep describing the consequences of the ruling wrongly?

Yup, the most vulnerable group in society ever is not just undermining women's rights but they are happy to take national sovereignty with it.

"Laws? What laws? I interprete them however I like and you'll have to wait 7 years each time for redress."

The arms of government need to wake up and give the baby its dummy. Or a time out. But actual parenting not pandering now sorely required.

I'm sorry, but this did really make me laugh

I don't think they've been considered trusted media by a lot of people for about 15 years. Then again, we're probably the sort of people who are labelled in all kinds of ways.

It does genuinely surprise me to see them referred to as "trusted media" though.

I've just written to the i to complain as well - if anyone wants to crib my email:

Dear i news,

I am writing about an inaccurate statement in the following article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wes-streeting-health-secretary-keir-starmer-lbc-supreme-court-b2738879.html

This contained the following statement:

"Wes Streeting told LBC radio the NHS is still updating its guidance after the Supreme Court ruled the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.

This means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate”."

This is in fact incorrect. What the court found is that transgender women with a GRC are excluded from women's single-sex spaces, because they are not female. If they are included in those spaces, it by definition ceases to be single sex. The proportionality test does not apply and there are no circumstances in which single sex spaces can include a trans person of the opposite sex.

The proportionality test applies to the creation of single-sex spaces in the first place, which are needed in many circumstances for the safety, privacy and dignity of both men and women."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/b37f03e41e432ec8

The BBC is to hold a listening session for transgender staff following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of a woman.An internal memo from senior figures at the cooperation invited transgender and non-binary staff members to a “dedicated in-person listening session”.It acknowledged that “the last few days have been difficult for many of you” after Britain’s highest court ruled that transgender women are not legally women.
The BBC is facing questions about why the same support was not offered to female employees who have felt isolated by the broadcaster’s position on sex and gender.

It's not just the BBC, the i newspaper also got it wrong this morning again reporting on Wes Streeting's comments about treating trans people in private rooms. Repeated the line "trans people can be excluded from single-sex spaces if deemed proportionate" - wrong.

There are NO cases where trans people can be included in single sex spaces which do not align with their biological sex. If they are, it is no longer a single sex space.

Clarity seems to be Enemy #1 to TRAs and their allies in the media.

That's why the SC ruling has caused such uproar and panicky reactions - it says 'woman' means 'biological woman' and 'single sex spaces' are single sex spaces'. It couldn't be clearer.

If the media/academia [some of it anyway] and other elements of the establishment are so hell-bent on still insisting that some men are women, or that some men really really need to be considered as women or they'll be really really sad, I can't help wondering what they think a Supreme Court is actually for?

It's the highest court in your land, eejits, and it is paid to make clear and definitive rulings. It just did. It's a Supreme Court, not a takeaway, and its rulings are not a menu that you can pick and choose from.

50%+ of the population had reason to be heartened and relieved by the ruling, as it re-affirmed their rights which had been encroached on.

5%? of the population had their rights re-affirmed, but because they had encroached on other people's rights, they are now furious because they 'only' have their rights.

This sums it up with the clarity that TRAs and their allies seem to loathe:

To women: their rights and no less.
To transpeople: their rights and no more.

I just posted a comment that was made in the HoL yesterday on the HoL thread thread where Baroness Levitt (who has a trans child) said a similar thing (the text of the exchange is on the other thread). Thankfully it was swiftly corrected by the Baroness Smith of Malvern, but it’s so frustrating that this is everywhere.

I’m hopeful that this will change once the statutory guidance comes out, but I wonder if part of the issue is that most law firms are so captured by Stonewall (and the culture lingers on even for the ones who’ve officially cut ties) that they don’t want to say anything definitive as most are currently being very wishy washy and deliberately obtuse, pretending they can’t understand the judgment.

That peculiar advice to schools doc yesterday was trying it on too. It's clinging to the idea that women can only say no to men in very particular circumstances and some men can still go into single sex spaces.

They can't.

At a guess they got an intern to do the research.

No, it's deliberate. As an example the PM programme got Lord Sumption on to give his view. There's no evidence that he has any special knowledge about this area of law and, in fact, he didn't actually know the correct name for the Equality Act. He then gave a muddled and misleading view.

Because this was more in the direction of what the BBC would like the law to be rather than what it actually is, Evan Davis lapped it up and Sumption's version ended up being referred to all over social media.

I think there are factions in the BBC. The decision came out on Wednesday and so deep was the shock, it took the genderists there two days to rally before pushing out their own narrative.

I think they are possibly using the term deliberately and narrowly correctly and based on sex when they want people to assume the opposite, that some men who identify as women are still allowed in women’s spaces.

Depending on the author it’s been used both ways.
It’s genuinely purposeful and Arendt wrote about it as an authoritarian/totalitarian tactic.

They mean a man who identifies as a woman.

I'm very confused. What do they mean by "transgender women". Is it a MtF or a FtM?

This misinformation has got to stop. It is beyond frustrating that respected media like the BBC and the Guardian are muddying the waters when everything should now be crystal clear.

Yes, the proportionality/legitimacy test for creating a women’s space has already been met for it to be a women’s space.

Proportional - separate men and women facilities or resources were provided.

End of.

There was a correction footnote on an article the other day so they know.

The BBC does have a bit of form for putting out the message they want, and then quietly putting a 'whoops, sorry, misinformation' note a day or so later. Everyone's read it by then and they got over the influencing they wanted to achieve, and they can then put their 'oops we did it again' note on which covers arses without anyone much seeing it or realising they were misinformed.

This lot should not be publicly funded. The licence should have gone bloody years ago.

But the judgment is in very clear language and publicly available and this Hail Mary attempt to try and enforce yet more Stonewall law instead of real law is not going to work.

I agree with PPs that it’s purposeful confusion.

BBC, Guardian, Harriet Harman and others are still failing to face up to the reality of the ruling......by still talking about "proportionality" and how men with trans identities can be excluded from female spaces with good reason...the implication being that they can still access female only spaces in some circumstances.

The ruling, however, made clear that if a space is designated 'single sex', or has 'woman' on it that is what it means......no male people, even those with a GRC, may use that space.

It has been suggested that organisations could create unisex facilities in place of single sex facilities, but that this should only be applicable if there is no space for singles sex plus a unisex facility.

Some activists will now be pushing for all toilets now to be unisex so as to get around the ruling and preserve the notion that men are women if they "feel" like it..but it has been made clear doing so could bring about legal challenges from those claiming sex discrimination. ( from people who want single sex facilities)

I've complained too. The BBC are a disgrace with regards to this issue. Also guardian.

I agree the right thing to do is to complain each and every time. It's going to take a while though - I think I've seen even one of our resident GC lawyers argue that it's still fine to discriminate on the basis of gender identity (because GI is not a protected characteristic), which I'm pretty sure is not true, but then IANAL so what would I know...

Yes they are as are the guardian and yes it is deliberate. It’s just the same ongoing tactic of “oh god it’s all sooo hard and confusing to tell who is a man and who is a woman how can we possibly knooowww?”

this has now morphed into “oh yes we know what the judgement said but it’s all sooooo hard and anyway something something proportionate aim and we need EHRC guidance So let’s let men keep doing what they want and ignore anyone who disagrees”