Supreme Court ruling sounded simple. Then the resistance started

Various places who ignore the law will buckle when they face legal action. It will take a few years to sort it out.

As of now the main resistance to the ruling is headed up by the Greens [in serious financial difficulties and being sued for sexism in cases they will lose and Joylon. Joylon's case against judgement is weak and he will fritter the money away and achieve nothing.

So right now if we keep pushing the situation looks positive. Especially as the medical case gets stronger every day.

I was thinking of who the TRA reminded me of and it’s those Freeman on the Land nutters. Those who try to mangle language to claim they are not liable to obey any laws they have not consented to and don’t have to pay council tax etc. I think we should treat the TRA with exactly the same respect Freeman on the land

My understanding is that they can continue to provide services that include trans women, but if they do they can't describe that service as single sex or women-only.

It would be perfectly legal to provide a mixed sex service but that would mean they would have to admit men, any men, as well. Which, given the high percentage of men who are abusers rather than abused, could cause them some serious safeguarding headaches. Plus the service could only be advertised as mixed sex so I imagine most women would choose to self-exclude from it anyway.

I may be wrong, but I did read the judgement and that was my take.

Where do these women's charities intend to get the money to fund the inevitable court case, if they decide to ignore the law?

Where do these places get their funding? How is that going to work if they can't demonstrate they are legally compliant?

Here's an archive of that link with a share token: https://archive.fo/2rlz7

Thank you, v interesting read.

Thanks for this. I follow Peter Daly on LinkedIn and he is very knowledgeable on this area of law.

Re Goodwin, I saw this on TwiX this morning:

https://x.com/peter_daly/status/1916519030279594463?s=46

Unsurprisingly, it’s not the gotcha the TRA crowd seem to think it is.

If they take it to the ECHR and win, all that will happen is that Reform will take us out of the ECHR citing stuff about European Judges and sovereignty and we'll end up poorer, closer aligned with the US, with less healthcare and worse food standards.

If they take it to the ECHR and lose, all that will happen is more mantrums and more demands. But no official campaign to remove the rights of women because these twits don't actually understand how law is made nor how the courts work.

Election strategists know this subject is utterly toxic unless you are the green party who are only likely to win seats in the areas of the country with a disproportionate level of battshittery appreciation. Where applicable they are more likely to use Trumpian tactics of 'bothsiding' and then denying and end up being caught out by this as they aren't any good at it and are trying to appeal to a public who have had enough of this type of doublespeak.

Goodwin was about marriage. It also covered pensions.

it said nothing on single sex spaces or compelled speech.

they won’t be be able to use it to challenge this ruling.

Trans organisations such as Stonewall could have applied to be heard but didn't bother. They saw case involving the SG and Amnesty against a small charity run by middle aged women and thought they could not lose. Breath taking arrogance but we knew that already.

The TRAs are purposely muddying the water and inventing this supposed confusion. The media isn't helping women either.

Archived: https://archive.fo/LJOEU

Both the Scottish Government AND AMNESTY were representing transpeople. Against THREE women.

The reason they lost is not because they weren't represented but because they were wrong.

I don't understand why they are all so shocked.

I don't understand why they are complaining that no evidence was submitted from the trans community. Surely that is the fault of the Scottish Government who were representing the trans community but obviously chose not to include those groups, presumably because they did not think it would help their case.

That's an own goal. Take it up with the Scottish Government lawyers.

There'll be an extinction burst.

Don't panic. Do hold steady.

They just assumed it was going to go in their favour.

Goodwin v UK (2002, ECHR) gets bandied about a lot. Anyone know how applicable this is to the SC ruling?

I so hope this is true. I don’t think it is though.

I'm almost in favour of this going to the European court of human rights... to be won again. Eventually.

It is so discriminatory to advocate to not have any place reserved only for the group of people born female.

Europe is captured through individual states. The ripple effect of them acknowledging women as a sex class will need popcorn and lots of head pats.

TRAs will shoot themselves in the foot if any of the judiciary in Europe are forced to consider the question of what a woman is. I.e. not what a transwoman is, just if females can meet without males present.

I don't understand why they are all so shocked. This case has been going through the courts for five years and there was nothing in the judgment that was not in the arguments from FWS and their interveners. Did they just not pay attention? Given the rate at which women have been winning cases i'd have expected them to be a bit more on the ball with this one and to have been prepared for what the judgment would mean either way.

Andy Burnham firmly sitting on the fence. Idiot.
https://x.com/FFS_WhatNow/status/1916514098616938949?t=jik3pwkiiXVaVNiRalB7rA&s=19

It's an astonishing turnaround.

TRAs are lamenting being treated in exactly the same way they tried to treat women. Bemoaning that they have no backing in law or government, no money to fight their cause and no one cares about them.

Get over it. You caused this mess in the first place, you had the money and support of every institution in the country to get your needs met. That wasn't good enough was it. You didn't want your own as well as us, you had to take from us. And you did it in the most violent, threatening way. So much so that many of the people who were afraid to speak out and stand up for women are still scared to say publicly what they really think.

But the law is openly fully behind us now and people are slowing and tentatively testing the waters and starting to speak out. There are a lot of casualties, families ripped apart, livelihoods lost and unforgivable public attacks but hopefully the remaining battles will now just be skirmishes and eventually settle down into a new peace. The judge was right, neither side has won. But we were only fighting to maintain our rights, not take from anyone else.

I think it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The unhinged rage of TRA being told no has been something to behold. I’m certain they will be mounting a campaign of civil disobedience with a strap line along the lines of #youcantstopus or something

of course as always they underestimate the will of women. They keep saying - that we’ll have to target individual businesses and complain. Do they really think that women who have spent the last years taking institutions and businesses to court, are going to be put off by having to write complaint letter’s especially now it’s been confirmed the law is on our side?