Just one article to convince someone that it's not just about sport?

This is brilliant!

I think a lot of the problem is about how so many people don't understand how the law (or civil society as a whole actually works).

Trump is making the same mistake over tariffs. He thinks it's like magic without understanding all the other functionality of trade deals and understanding.

Brexit and supply chains follows a similar pattern. It's all about functionality versus idealism.

You cant operate on ideals because practicalities get in the way. The Bastards.

Having just read the Helen Lewis Atlantic piece linked above- I think something like this with an overview of the ruling- from moderate journalists and from left wing publications- that clarify the clash of rights being addressed are very helpful in this situation.
This one from the Guardian is good for that too:
<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2025.04.18-065341/www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/18/if-britain-is-now-resetting-the-clock-on-trans-rights-where-will-that-leave-us" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2025.04.18-065341/www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/18/if-britain-is-now-resetting-the-clock-on-trans-rights-where-will-that-leave-us

Good luck OP. Its so hard, I know. Have had similar with my own son (19) - but he is pretty willing to discuss and look at info I send- especially when I've heard him out first.
I keep having to remember it's the water they swim in- and so am very grateful for any opening to different sharing perspectives.
For my son- an interest in history has helped!

He's definitely missing understanding the role of the courts. Possibly because Americans are sticking their oar in and it's different between the UK and US.

In the US judges can rule based on politics; they are politicised and appointed by political parties.

In the UK, impartiality is sacrisant. They can only rule on what is presented before them on the balance of probabilities and definitions laid out in law. They are non political.

Politicians write the law.

So if there is a problem with a ruling, it should fall back to politicians to resolve rather than because the judges have been biased/unfair etc etc.

This is where the issue now is so problematic. The activists ultimately know that politically they haven't got a leg to stand on because their position is so extreme and the public don't agree so politicians will not rewrite the law in the way that they want. So it's easier to hurl abuse at the judges because they know the game is over.

Certain activists knew from the beginning they could only get what they wanted by flying everything under the radar. The problem came when it was no long under the radar and too many people started claiming transgender rights thus undermining other rights. Basically they got caught out taking the piss and not doing things by public consent. This is all documented and on record so it's undeniable too.

If you explain that if you let in some men you have to legally let ALL men in? Otherwise you have a 2 tier system where some men have extra "rights".

I think we need to push it back onto the trans community to come up with answers such as they agree only men who have had full surgery and have lived as a woman for 5 years full time can use female spaces if they always carry a card. I mean, I doubt many of them will do that because they just want to use it to access female spaces but it at least has a bar they are willing to negotiate from. I think a lot of trans supportive people think they have all had surgery rather than are men who just dress up when they want to try to see women naked in their spare time.

I think as sport is visible and men care about it, they can see TW in women’s sport is wrong. They don’t “see” TW in female prisons/rape centres/changing rooms and they don’t understand the fear.

Ask him if any girls he knows alter their behaviour because of the fear or assault/rape/male violence. Ask him why he thinks that fear stops if a TW ids as a woman. Ask him if he is aware that many TW are sexually interested in women, not men. Ask him if he thinks male pattern violence stops once a TW ids as a woman.

This won't be overly helpful to you I suspect, OP, but his comment about enforcing gender stereotypes on the entire population is topsy-turvy, as all the batshit trans ideology is. The SC judgment is about biology and sex differences, not who wears the skirts and who wears the trousers. Can't he see that?

Alternatively you define and codify gender stereotypes into law as definitions.

'people who wear dresses'
'people who care for children's
'people who wear high heels and dresses'

Good luck with that as an idea is all I can say.

The Marty McFly Principle.

For any thing to be workable in law, you have to be able to define what you mean.

For the purposes of the Equality Act, this means who has what protected characteristic.

Key to this is what those characteristics are: these are age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, and religion or belief.

The actual wording on gender reassignment is - A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Now how do we know who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if sex doesn't mean biological sex and is just a fuzzy concept based on how people feel (note because it's about proposing to undergo as well as has gone through, we can't refer to a GRC here). Thus if we make sex a fuzzy indefinable thing or erase it completely any woman who declare herself a transwoman or any man could declare themselves a transman and the law couldn't argue differently as you don't have the necessary words to define them as not.

Thus sex can ONLY be biological sex otherwise you do a Marty McFly and erase the very existence of transpeople by your own actions of deleting sex - because if you erase sex, you remove the ability to defend trans rights.

That's the paradox. Trans people rely of the observation of sex for their rights. They can not pick and choose where sex is relevant and where it is not if we are acting in a way which treats everyone equally and impartially. Sex has to be based on biological sex. It's impossible in law for it to be an indefinable concept like gender without reference to sex in order to PROTECT transpeople!

This sex MUST mean biological sex. Because the Act itself doesn't reference anything different in its definitions.

In theory it COULD have made a distinction here and added definitions about legal and biological sex to certain points. But it didn't. It actually lumps people with a formal recognition which is completed TOGETHER with those who are still going through the process. Therefore you have to default to how you can identify those who don't have a certificate as your common definition point. (If the law had been explicit and said on awarding of a certificate only then you could identify them in this way but because it doesn't you HAVE to make reference to sex not a certificate).

And the Supreme Court can't rewrite the law. They can only go to the letter of the law.

When you understand the Marty McFly principle you understand that the Supreme Court had no other option but to rule the way it did. Otherwise it makes no sense and those undergoing / who have gender reassignment, are homosexual or have a sex (either sex!) lose all ability to protect themselves in law because they can't distinguish themselves from other humans in law!!!

This is ALL you need to know about the ruling. It's completely neutral. It protects literally everyone. Otherwise everyone loses rights!

It's that bonkers and that misrepresented.

I don’t think I’m going to argue with anyone on this. Hopefully the worst of the moaning and criticism will die away.
I would though write to public bodies if unhappy with their comments /publications.

Sharon Davies on pm last night on R4 said that banning Twomen from football etc was for insurance reasons. I guess if someone is injured playing football and it is by someone now deemed the male sex the insurance payments ( I’ve no idea about sports law) would be v high.
So it could be said it’s not nasty women stopping Twomen from playing it’s the Law!

The reason I wrote the above post is because you will not change her mind with facts.

So make her think about the solution

Maybe say that you agree that for trans people this is not what they are used to and ask whether you could both try and help trans people by trying to campaign together for safe third spaces for all trans individuals.

Not an article as such but the damning independent review into the practices at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre after a damning Employment Tribunal is a perfect example of the kind of situation caused by organisations captured by gender ideology who ignored the law and why the SC judgement was so important -

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/resources/ERCC-Review-Report-FINAL1-.pdf

So tricky. I would say something like 'what cruelty do you mean?' I would be very supportive of third spaces, but to give anyone the 'right' to be treated as the opposite sex would mean, for example, that women would be forced to change in front of men, or be strip searched by men. I think that would be cruel for the women.

Jessica Yaniv's Wikipedia is a start.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv

‘nor assault children in bathrooms.’
I have actually done research on this. I believe it’s the design that makes a difference as crimes are likely to happen in private.

You could always discuss the public toilet door gap conundrum. Because focusing on one characteristic and ignoring others means more designs are actually dangerous for all. But particularly anyone medically vulnerable (including those with invisible disabilities) and women and children (because of assaults).

Public mixed sex toilet designs don’t have door gaps so are best for men that are healthy (ie. Men not about to have a heart attack or stroke). Ironically medical emergencies are likely to happen in a toilet room because that’s where people rush to when they feel ill.

Thats why we need single sex toilets with door gaps. They are safer for everyone.

It should be about considering everyone. If he looks in the government consultation document for toilet design for people with long term health conditions he will understand, because they didn’t even mention most of the long term health conditions that cause collapse, and instead closed the gaps on designs because they linked to ‘evidence’ - opinion article from transactivists who preferred enclosed designs. The company that did the consultation were on the Stonewall scheme and won a gold award the next year.

Inclusivity isn’t inclusivity if it focuses on one group to the detriment of all others. There needs to be checks and balances.

Safety, for when any of us are at are most vulnerable, should come first.

On the contrary, if you don't define women by the fact that they are biologically female, the only other option is to define them by conformity to gender stereotypes (subjective ideas about how a woman thinks, feels, looks, behaves) or to cop out with nonsensical circular reasoning. You could point this out and explain that you find any definition of woman that is not based on material reality to be regressive and sexist.

I imagine your son hasn't thought about it properly but if it was my son I'm not sure I'd bother trying to convince him if he was being respectful towards my views, which yours does seem to be. But my son is only 7 so that's an uninformed opinion as I don't have any experience of navigating relationships with adult children!

I also picked up on the reference to "gender stereotypes".

Are you able to use socratic questioning with him that appear more about "clarification" rather than judgement? eg.

Interesting analysis - just to be clear I understand you, can you clarify what you mean by "gender stereotypes"?

Ok and now can I just understand what relationship "biological characteristics" (the words used in the judgement) have to gender stereotypes?

So if there's no connection between biology and gender stereotypes, how is the court imposing those gender stereotypes on people with this judgement...

etc etc

This. Prison statistics on men who wish they were women* and also prison statistics on the background and exposure to abuse of the women who end up in prison.

So look at the statistics of the type of woman who ends up in prison. And then look at the statistics of men who have been put into the female prisons. And think about what you are exposing these female prisoners to. And the staff.

*I am still debating whether to use "trans identifying men" or this longer version. Someone made the excellent point that "trans identifying men" puts the trans identity at the front and in focus. But I do need a shorter way of saying "men who wish they were women".... MWWTWW??!

Ok, well if transwomen are men, then why would they be entitled to share women's spaces in toilets/prisons/changing rooms etc.etc. Why them and not any other men? Their "oppression" doesn't entitle them to opposite sex spaces any more than being gay/old/weak/disabled would. Letting in transwomen but not other men would be discriminating against men surely?