Is anyone worried about pressure now to change the Equality legislation?

Let them push all they want. Women will always push back harder, louder, and with more strength than they can ever hope to match.
It’s a shame that the past few years have not taught them that we will not roll over and accept attacks on our rights, and that ultimately we will always win because we have science and common decency on our side

I don't think they'll touch the Equality Act but I do think they'll try and push a Conversion Bill through as quickly as possible as a sop to TRAs.

@PersephoneSeethes I've just been RickRolled! Was that intentional? 😂

I think we should just get Kemi Badenoch to read out the ‘Open letter to MPs from Transrights Now!’ in Parliament.

Plus, people like Helen, Joyce, Bev Jackson and Michael Foran are now appearing on mainstream media programmes (unthinkable a year ago).

There is an issue of fairness as well. How are countries who have banned males from playing in their women's teams at elite level feel about playing against countries who haven't done this?

@RobinEllacotStrike I’d argue no one believes TWAW not even TW.

I think many TW really do believe it. India Willoughby genuinely seems to believe that he is now "biologically female" - he said on Twitter the other day that he's fairly sure he would pass a cheek swab sex test. He's also said that "changing sex" means that sex changes at a cellular level in the body.

He is seriously deluded.

I think the big thing that is being overlooked is the international implications of this decision. This is UK law only.

So how will it affect, for example, sports. If international sports bodies dont agree will they stop holding events here as presumably no male will be allowed in a female event no matter what the governing body say.

I think that's very true. The more public the demands and proclivities of the transactivists have become in recent years, the lower the public's sympathy with various trans "rights" has become.

yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425

Well I just saw this on reddit:

I am a transgender woman on the elected board of one of the main political parties in the UK. On the 18th of next month, we have a board meeting. How would you like me to proceed?

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1k87h7k/notice_i_am_a_transgender_woman_on_the_elected/

Don't they just!

Tom Daley has no problem with transwomen swimming in women's competitions, but when he wanted a baby, he knew exactly which type of woman to go to.

And I think surely we will return to a place of common sense and fairness in women's sport, and I can't see that being reversed again. The male category is going to have to be the inclusive one.

The genie is out of the bottle now. If there were to be any changes, there would be public debate about it as the days of 'no debate' and slipping things through by stealth are over. People would hear about things like autogynephilia for the first time.

The thing is, if the EA wasn't in breach of compatibility when it was passed, it can't be now. Nothing has changed.

The Fox Killer is on it:

We believe the UK is now in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights and we plan to ask the High Court for a declaration of incompatibility.

https://goodlawproject.org/crowdfunder/supreme-court-human-rights-for-trans-people/

Hopefully with Good Law Project’s usual success rate.

Agree. I can’t see any political party wanting to give this time and attention when there is so much else going on. And it would be an absolute gift to opposing parties.

In Ireland, equality laws were changed so there is no reference to sex - there used to be, but somehow that was overwritten retrospectively - only gender.

The result is that sex is not a protected characteristic, so women [and men] have no specific protection under equality law. Entirely removing the word 'sex' meant that it wasn't possible to have the exemptions that have always been legal in the UK.

In short, women as a biological and social class have been written out of the law here.

Interestingly, it would appear from the last general election campaign that political parties are starting to get the message that genderwoo is not popular with the electorate, and most if not all of the political parties quietly slid their trans policies off of their home pages and into a PDF somewhere...

It would be ironic if the UK legislature moved to do to your equality legislation what we did years ago, and are now having buyers' remorse about - well, some of us are!

The SC ruling said, if I remember rightly, that anything other than the clear, obvious definition of 'woman' as 'biological woman' results in incoherence in the law. Shifting the goalposts so the law refers to gender and not sex is an example of the lengths to which 'they' are prepared to go to deprive women of our rights.

Ditto toilet arrangements - they'll do anything under the sun to avoid the most obvious, and long-established arrangement which provides women with women's single sex toilets, full stop.

No I really can’t. Labour will have focus grouped and polled this and know it’s not a vote winner - in Fact it’s the opposite

with everything else they have to deal with I think they’ll take the opportunity hide behind the SC and sweep it under the carpet

I would think the whips will be telling any back bench MPs thinking of bringing a private members bill to think again if they value their careers

I am not sure we can rely on a vote to support women's rights - 50% of the population believe that men and women are equal but men are simply better at politics, economics and making money ... and of the remaining 50%, a large proportion of them also struggle to see why women should be supported, encouraged, protected...

I’ve said this before on other threads I can see the EA2010 being changed to clearly separate sex and gender.

sex = biological sex. Everyone has a sex and it cannot change. The only exception is someone with a DSD incorrectly observed at birth.

Gender Identity as a separate pc or with gender reassignment - TRAs/Stonewall can come up with the definition. The pc must be clear it is a belief system and people who do not believe must not be discriminated against. It would also encompass non/binary people not currently protected.

The GRA needs to be rewritten using Gender only and to include a process for people with a GRC to revert to their birth sex/gender I.e. detransitioners like Keira Bell need to be able to become female again. We need it to be fair to people who already have a GRC.

The SC was clear the judgement clarified the law it did not change it. Trans people have protection under the GR pc.

I know many on here will disagree with me, but a lot of the general public sit in the middle of the arguments. Most are likely to agree with SSS, that sex matters and that women and girls should be treated with dignity and respect. However, most are also likely to agree that trans and non-binary people should not be discriminated against and be treated with dignity and respect.

Dialog is needed to create clarity where sex and gender rights clash. Defining this in law makes it clear for everyone and helps stop compelled speech.

The “no debate” did more harm than good. Being magnanimous in victory doesn’t mean you have to believe in GI it means you accept some people do believe in GI and are entitled to their belief.

Contributing constructively to the way forward is the best way to reach a consensus that works for women and people with gender dysphoria. The people with Malaga airport can foxtrot Oscar.

There's already been, in that insane letter, a demand that the govt immediately removes all mentioned of sex, exceptions and beliefs from the EA. Yes, I'd expect some attempt.

The judgment however went through this with a toothcomb and made it clear there is no way to do this without destroying all protections for women and for lesbian and gay people. There is also no way to differentiate between men with certificates and men without certificates because of privacy/practicality, and no way to let some men have access without all men having access because of discrimination against the rest of the sex class of men.

Essentially the EA would have to go, and so would everyone else's legal protections and equality rights. And fix in law that men have a sex based entitlement to access of non consenting women in a state of undress, and that providing this to men on demand is a condition of women using public spaces (while pretending no one knows what sex is, and the men with this sex based power are women.) The GI lobby would be all for that, but I doubt anyone else much would.

Third spaces where necessary meet all the actual needs for equality.

I think this is a real risk... women speaking to defend the right of women to define the meaning of the word woman, to be described as women, to defend the spaces that were deemed necessary for our safety and dignity, are not heard, supported or defended by politicians, business leaders, journalists, policing authorities and in some cases, not even the courts - but it is the courts, where we have seen the battle lines defended, despite the fact that women have been compelled to lie in court and refer to their male assailants with female pronouns - so even the court system is not defending the position of women.

I think we will see more reliance on the GRC, less emphasis on the support and creation of sex segregated spaces, increased use of neutral language and further amplification of male voices in female spaces.

The behaviours we have seen in Education, Civil Service, NHS, the Police, the Judiciary and in Government have show a willingness to side step the concerns of women and centre those who speak of inclusion, progression and freedom of expression, ignoring the fact that this results in an over representation of male voices in all spaces. I do not believe that the ruling of the Supreme Court will stop this movement.

I believe we will continue to see the narrative that the Equality Act is only one part of the legal structure of our country and while single sex spaces can be justified in some cases - I think these will continue to be challenged by the voices that are amplified by journalists, MPs and people in power and that there will be insufficient support for the female perspective. Even where single sex provision is legally required (schools, hospitals) - the organisations in question proceeded to ignore or dismantle these provisions without impediment. In cases there single sex provision is not legally required, I believe that single sex provisions will fade away under the guise of giving equal opportunities for everyone, removing sex based stereotypes and inclusion.

For the most part, I am 100% supportive of giving equal opportunities for everyone, removing sex based stereotypes and inclusion but when the reality is that girls and women face continued structural and cultural barriers to equal share of power, wealth and share of voice, unless we continue to reflect, review and report on progress towards equality, it will slip backwards.

TA power is still huge in the cultural/academic sector.

but not in the real world where most of the population live.

To change things they now need to change the entire basis of equality law.

That is a huge thing. It requires massive commitment and open discussion over years.

Notice that the SNP have now basically given up on this stuff. This is because while there were many gender fanatics in the party MOST just went along with it and had no deep commitment. As soon as they saw deep resistance from the public they either give up, or read more deeply and flip to the reality side usually while pretending they haven't changed. Instead of saying we respect women and stabbing them in the back, they now say we respect the trans people while ignoring what TAs say. Obviously we can see this for the hypocrisy it is, but lets be realistic - this is how human politics works. John Swinney is absurd - BUT as soon as the TAs lost him they were in serious serious trouble. Relying on people without principles is politically a very risky plan.

The problem on relying on consensus politics is that the type of people who go along with it ultimately go for the perceived strong side over the weak. For years the TAs were the side these type of people backed, now it is going the other way. Because in the long run it is pretty clear our side are going to win now.

This is the problem for the TAs open debate ALWAYS makes them weaker. Because they don't have much except don't listen to the bad women and the bad gays.

That is why we won 5-0.

So we are winning, but to keep winning we have to push HARDER.

We watch the politicians like a hawk as the TA side are still out there we look at the upcoming Conversion therapy bill is a potential danger area as is the Digital ID bill. TA power is still huge in the cultural/academic sector.

Not until they need to rent a womb! Then wham! We know where all the biological women are at!