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

Yes we will need some definitions:
gender
trans
transgender
transition
fully transitioned
non binary

good luck with all of that.

and according to TRAs “biological sex” needs a definition too. 😂😂😂

it comes back to language again & again doesn’t it. I’m reading now “Starmer doesn’t even believe trans women are women” - stated with disbelief .
”Starmer doesn’t even believe seahorses are horses” 🐎 😱😳😂

I’d argue no one believes TWAW not even TW. But the mantra TWAW has been very powerful for TRAs & the compulsion to lie in support of the “most marginalised & vulnerable” has been extremely attractive to the middle classes. In complex issues with many diverse opinions people outsource their thinking. We all do this to one extent or another. TRA talking points can sound reasonable to many if you give them a glance. And then a huge % of politicians & media etc repeated the mantra over & over & so many people went with “be kind”.

look at how Alastair Campbell has done no research or investigation himself, instead fostering his own willfull ignorance & proudly displaying it publicly when he talks about this issue. It’s toe curling embarrassing but he’s so arrogant not to be bothered by this. And he has much support.

as for WHY I think about this a lot too. I keep coming back to power, misogyny & access to women & girls. This access can be as “simple” as affirmation, for AGPs it’s a turn on/feeds their fetish, or something even more nefarious.

access to women & girls is at the heart of most MVAWG.

without TWAW mantra/lie we would all be in a very different place today.

Don't tempt MPs into creating bad law with vague definitions.
They've done it once already with the GRA and that one's most likely due an update complete with unknown/undefined terms.

Somewhere TRAs will have to recognise that their demands conflict with sex based rights. And provide a solution that doesn't conflict to come to peace.

MPs on the other hand, I honestly have no idea what they need. They go with the wind.

I agree that ought to be the case but if MPs are hellbent on passing a law, they don't care about pesky details like definitions.

Absolutely. There's been a huge misrepresentation of the powerful trans lobby as "some of the most marginalised / vulnerable people in the world". While in fact they were an immensely powerful, male led lobby that managed to overturn the social contract and bully almost the whole population into agreeing with their anti social, anti safeguarding demands that have harmed so many.

The main vulnerable people in that community are now all the children and young adults who have been sucked into this age inappropriate ideology and gaslit that their developing bodies were wrong. They were and remain vulnerable and now have to face the consequences including their mangled bodies and futures.

Marginalised indeed 😡

Following the clarification of the law it has been made clear that this is not allowed. Any euphemism, the male/female symbol, damsel, dame, pictures of an aubergine Vs a peach etc. any indication that the toilets are separated by sex means they need to be single sex and sex in this case refers to biological sex.

They would have to make both spaces overtly mixed sex and even then they could be accused of discrimination if one toilet retains urinals and doesn't contain sanitary disposal for example as it would still be clear that one sos e is set up for men and not for women.

I am hating the current push by transactivists to immediately undermine the clarity of the current judgment. That has been their tactic throughout and it is incredibly tiresome.

But the reason they have done, and continue to do this, is that their demands are entirely unreasonable. They might manage some legal changes, if they switch to asking for something more reasonable, but it’s difficult to know what that might be.

There’s no doubt that in their overreach, they have shot themselves in the foot. Even the ECHR created problems in saying that it was bad policy to require medical or surgical intervention for access to opposite sex spaces. “Medical need” would have been a much easier argument for them to justify, even when that meant infringement of other (healthy) people’s rights.

I do wonder whether some legal challenge will be attempted through the ECHR and we might discover that the EHCR is another captured organization. Even then, I think there would be broad calls for the UK to leave as I think there are so many people who are heartily sick of all this.

It is odd though. Most people I know are sick of it, but I do still know some rational, decent people who are still pushing the “Trans rights are human rights” agenda. I think the pushback is still going to take far longer than it ought to.

I doubt there will be new legislation. Labour managers know this debate damages them more than it does Con / Reform and won’t want the headlines.

I think there will be campaigning to change the law.

I also think it will not be changed as it would be a gift to Reform and the Tories to campaign to keep the present law.

Slightly worried that some of the die-hards in the Labour Party (Stella Creasy etc) might try to go down this route, but overall, it runs so contrary to public opinion that I don’t think it will be a real issue.

What I really don’t understand is why transpeople want to pretend they are actually the opposite sex. Transwomen aren’t women, they are transwomen, and that’s an identity they should be able to be proud of. Trying to force non-consenting women into vulnerable situations with them is wrong on so many levels, and doesn’t help their standing in society. They (and their allies - and I’d be happy to be one if this is how they behaved) should be out there fighting to get the changes to society/infrastructure that they need rather than trying to steal stuff from women.

btw OP, why do you think GC is the wrong side of history?

The most noise is being made about public and workplace toilets and changing rooms, so that seems to be the area where new legislation and/or regulations will be needed, as it was with disabilities some time ago, to accommodate everyone safely and with dignity and privacy. Refuges, wards, rape crisis services would still need to be available on a single sex basis but none of that prevents mixed sex facilities as well.

What none of the media blowhards seem to understand is that things appeared more 'progressive' before this judgment precisely because Stonewall et al had misled so many institutions that to some, the judgment feels like a backward step. (That they are blind to the fact that removing women's rights was always regressive is a separate but related point.)

In order for something to be legislated it would have to have a firm definition.
Given that the trans lobby cannot/are not able do this in any coherent manner, we should be ok.

I suppose it's possible, but they don't seem to have widespread public support now. Surveys are showing decreased support for trans rights in recent years, probably because of the transactivists' demands becoming more visible. Demonstrations like those last weekend, with photos of placards threatening violence splashed across the press, don't help their cause.

I'm more worried that public places will now stop providing single-sex toilets, changing rooms etc. If single-sex toilets must now exclude men (however they identify) then calling them mixed-sex or unisex means they can allow anyone to use them. A couple of museums in the county I grew up in describe their male and female toilets as "gendered toilets", which I assume is a way of not saying they are single-sex. So even though a toilet has a female symbol on the door, it's not intended to be single-sex and hence men are allowed in.

I don’t think there is likely to be public support to remove sex as a protected characteristic so long as VAWG is alive and kicking. Sadly, I can’t see VAWG becoming obsolete in my or my children’s lifetime.

I don’t think Labour, Conservative (or Reform) will have any appetite to change the legislation relating to the SC ruling. I think the Greens and LibDems will add it to their manifestos, for what that’s worth!

Marginalized describes individuals or groups treated as insignificant, often excluded from mainstream society and denied opportunities, resources, or power.

Yes I do. Do you?

The blokes who were pissing in the street last week don't need any kind of special accommodations. But I would appreciate a public conversation with stealth trans men and women because I don't know what would work best for them, I have no idea what sort of numbers of people we're talking about, and they have had no public voice until now. They only operate as a sort of TRA gotcha.
My suspicion is that we are talking about such a vanishingly small numer of people that no public works programs will be needed, but it would be good to know. And I'm sure from the perspective of long transitioned, never clocked trans people things look very different. Again, I'd be interested in a conversation that centred voices other than the types who were carrying on at last week's protest.

Do you understand what marginalised means?

I know what you're saying, I think all along the end game of extreme trans activism was to change the EA2010 because the exemptions contained within were massively inconvenient to gender ideologists. They (the "they" being mainly Stonewall) have tried doing this by stealth and without public scrutiny so far.

So I'm not sure the goal of tra extremists will have changed. However, what has changed is now they are under public scrutiny and it's notoriously difficult to get statute based laws changed. Now we have a statute based laws - the EA2010 and a precedent based ruling that the EA2010 refers to women meaning biological females. This is going to be exceptionally difficult to overturn and is probably a tra's worst nightmare.

But, they brought it on themselves.

Wouldn't you have to make gender identity worthy of respect in a democratic society, first?

Good luck with that

I'd say, if this did happen then let's put it to a public vote. See what the general public actually want. Despite all the 'poor marginalized trans vs. evil ugly old bigots type comments on social media, I don't believe the majority of the general public would vote in favour of having trans identified men back in women's spaces.

I would be interested to watch the public debate if this did happen.
In so many jurisdicitons, the movement to replace "sex" with "gender identity" in law has progressed by eschewing scrutiny. Trans rights activists have acknowledged this as a deliberate tactic.
If it was a fully democratic process I think it would be no bad thing for this to be hashed out in the public arena. Maybe changes to UK legislation would result, but I doubt it.