The words that have been pulled over your eyes

'221. There is nothing in the wording of this provision to indicate that paragraph 28 was directed specifically at those holding a GRC, nor is there any basis for concluding that this is its likely context as the Inner House suggested at para 56. (The example given in the explanatory notes at para 740 also does not distinguish between transexual people with a GRC and those without: “A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful”).

We can see nothing to support the Inner House’s conclusion that “the importance of this paragraph is that it provides the only basis upon which a person might be permitted to exclude a person with a GRC from services which are provided for their acquired sex”. Nor is the EHRC correct to assert that paragraph 28 is redundant on a biological interpretation of sex. On the contrary, if sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status.

Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception. '

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042

My bold, and I've added some paragraph breaks for ease of reading.

If you think men who push women's boundaries are creeps, does that mean that you would not use a woman's facility, butterfly?

Only for dramatic purposes.

Boundary-pushing creeps are horrendous - I'm so sorry. 🚩

Isn't this the same clause that some argued, prior to the Supreme Court ruling, only had very limited application?

Now apparently it applies in all cases?

If it was plainly there you can link to it then.

First response talks about genitals 😕

Weird AF.

Bloody brilliant post OP!

Been discussed many times, and explained, it's not the omg horror you're painting it.

The ruling discusses that in SOME situations (the paragraph is within the context of a rape crisis centre) it may be sufficiently distressing and alarming for women to be with people who have chosen to look outwardly significantly like men to prevent or impact on their use of a facility, and in that case it is reasonable to require those women with trans identities to use an alternative third space provided.

Why is this not wholly reasonable and sensible?

@NoKnittingAllowed

Sadly, despite the SC ruling, the reality is that TiMs are blatantly ignoring the ruling.

Last week I was on a 3-day course which had 25 participants, all teachers (primary and secondary). The majority were women (18) with 6 men and 1 TiM. We were all staying at the venue so had all meals together and spent all of the 3 days in the conference area of the hotel. The TiM was very, very obviously male even with his dress and makeup. He was well over 6’ tall and spent much of the course banging on about how he has been on ‘my personal journey’ and his
‘lived experience’. The course facilitators LITERALLY tied themselves up in knots to agree with every single thing he said and to gush about how ‘insane’ and ‘cruel’ the SC ruling was. It was frankly uncomfortable for most of us to witness.

And of course he/she was ‘absolutely welcome’ to use whichever facilities he/she wished to…which was the female toilets and female changing rooms and showers in the hotel gym!

Nobody said a word - as we would have been excluded from the course (it was an NEU Workplace Rep training course - the teaching unions are FULLY captured and have made their stance very clear since the ruling).

I don’t think for a second that trans activists (or at least TiMs) will pay any heed to the ruling. And as these people are in fact men, and usually huge (I’ve never met or seen a petite one!) women will continue to be too afraid to call them out.

The possibiity of it was in the text. Yet, funnily enough, it hasn't happened yet. Supposedly, a butch woman was challenged. Supposedly, a woman who had a double mastectomy was challenged. Yet there are no accounts yet of a trans man (let alone several of them) being challenged in the ladies' and forbidden to use the gents' thus left with nowhere to go.

I completely agree.

It's even more daft when, often, the very men who complain that that's not the case, are the very men who tell everybody that they are trans!

It was plainly there in the text of the SC ruling

They can indeed go fuck themselves.

I'm sorry for your experiences, but in terms of what AGP men are like, it doesn't surprise me.

Men with AGP fetishise women's subordination. Many of them are completely upfront about it. That's what they get off on.

Pushing your boundaries would be all part of it.

I'm really sorry. Some men are fuckers.

Circumferences, I'm sorry to hear about your experiences.

It's quite chilling that up until around ten years ago transvestic fetishism was well recognised as a paraphilia that was a red flag for abusive behaviour, but now ... well, we are not allowed to say that. Which means, what? Women and girls are more vulnerable.

There's a thread on X from a homicide cop in the States talking about how all the training suddenly changed.

No effort required.

It's not their genitals we are concerned about, its their sex.

If you think sex is just about genitals, I direct you to the rest of the site, which might inform you about the consequences of being born female.

<gets popcorn, settles down>

Gendered expectations are wrong, and are the boxes used to keep people in check. Unfortunately, without using these outdated, sexist stereotypes, gender ideology falls down. If being a man or a woman is not based on biology, the only other criteria is the gender stereotypes hated by feminists. Which reduces women to people who like pink, dolls and housework and men who like blue, cars and building. A lot of the trans ideology apostles claim they knew from a very young age as they wanted the toys and clothes belonging to the gendered stereotypes of the opposite sex. Rather than being a boy who liked pink and dolls, they claimed they must be a girl because only girls like those things. It’s a load of sexist bollocks.

Prepare for all the set up scenarios we’ve already debunked to be unleashed!!

Where has this happened?

If you keep believing that then it makes the life of a bunch of trans people slightly easier, I suppose. Silver linings and all.

@FlirtsWithRhinos I completely agree with your post of 13:18. We care about what sex someone is, not because the genitals matter at all but because the disadvantages loaded upon us from the day we are born are there because of our sex, as (almost-always) observed at birth via the simple check of what genitals are visible.

Women can do anything they put their minds to, but in any endeavor where the advantages of male physiology for strength, speed etc would be significant, there is no point running competitions to identify which woman or team of women is the best if there are any males in the competition. Even if the male is relatively mediocre and only comes 5th, every single competitor from 6th place to 100th place has been robbed of a slice of the achievement and that's nothing to do with genitals, but it is to do with biology.

When it comes to Business Woman of the Year awards or events/opportunities for women in science, engineering or tech, it's just as important that these are just for actual biological women even though there is no biological reason at all for women to perform less well than men - but the reasons why these things are needed are nevertheless rooted in biology and genitals because the societal pressure on a female person to be less, to be quiet and good and kind and acquiescent, is there all the time and it takes immense effort of will to overcome that. We have to care about the biology to understand what social barriers have been overcome for a woman to achieve what she has.

A male person who is bombarded with demands to conform to male stereotypes and who strongly feels that he doesn't fit that model is not and never can be in the same category as women who are fighting against the straightjacket of the sexist stereotypes that we are bombarded with, and which set of stereotypes we are damaged by is totally down to which genitals we have, so of couse we have to care about the biology.

Gendered expectations are horrible, damaging and wrong, and yet criticism of the structures that create all this damage (aka being Gender Critical) is somehow called "transphobic". It's awful how misrepresented the ideas of feminism are among people who haven't thought about this stuff properly.

In my opinion the only way to be a woman is to be born female and grow up. No other definition will work. A TW can never know what it is to be a woman as they were born male. Even those who claim they are treated “as a woman” are only being treated as a male who believes he is a woman. No one actually believes he is a woman. If they did, he would be treated as society treats women.

But apparently not female enough to escape being bannable from female facilities as well as male ones.