Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women'

[everythingthelighttouches]

Finally.

There is no “triumph” for me.

i am delighted though.
I feel relief that this reasonable request for clarity has been heard.

The judge also said “the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.”

As it should do. No one ever argued otherwise.

What's to stop Labour, with the backing of the Lib/Dems and Westminster SNP, striving to amend the Equality Act itself? Is this a possibility? They have enormous numbers and it's concerning.

I wouldn't have thought there would be much appetite for such a deeply unpopular move, but Labour don't seem to mind alienating people.

Your memory isn’t faulty

it never happened, just about everyone said that obviously transpeople should be protected…just a load of billy bollocks

Just popping the judges' savage burn to all the male lesbians here:

204. The second core provision is section 12 of the EA 2010 which defines the protected characteristic of sexual orientation and is framed by reference to orientation towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex, or either sex. Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.

People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate. Beautiful.

I think it's important to note that the Supreme Court said nothing whatsoever about what you or I mean when we use the term "woman", nor what we understand when others do so. They only ruled on a narrow question of statutory interpretation: what meaning did Parliament intend the word to have in the Equality Act 2010.

Eh?

Common sense at last. And what a relief, just as I was convinced the UK was turning into some kind of Orwellian dystopia.

However, i can't help wondering what this actually means on a practical level. I wholeheartedly agree with the op that the law should protect against discrimination, both for women and trans people. I also agree that women were never seeking for trans people not to have protections.

But it doesn't really answer the very real concerns that trans people have about their own safety. If a trans person who commits a crime can no longer be kept in a women's facility (good), then where do they go, and be safe? If they can no longer be on women's wards in hospital (good), then where do they go, and be safe? If they can no longer be in women's refuges (good), then where is their safe space?

I don't really think the debate has gone away, because the ruling doesn't provide solutions for the trans community. So public services will still be faced with a continued standoff between women's rights and trans rights. The needs of the two protected characteristics are incompatible with one another, and the hard questions still need to be asked. My hope though is that at the very least it will lead to a much needed reasoned, balanced and open conversation, without all the name calling. For too long, this opportunity has been stifled - which helps neither women nor the trans community.

No, two women and three men interpreted the current law as it stands…

I thought the judgement was very clear. Trans people have the protected charactersitic of gender reassignment and are fully protected from discrimination. What they want are some of the protections that women have from men, that lesbians have with the right to associate with other women etc. But the SC court has said no. See Nameychangington's post at 14:06.

I was responding to a post about a man judging! Hadn't realised women also involved.
Thank you ( not a sarky one, a genuine thank you!)

A huge well done to all the women and men who've fought for this. And thank you to Mumsnet for being at one point one of the only places it could be discussed.

Transwomen I think you mean, not transpeople?

Transwomen go to the prison/ hospital ward /refuge for their sex, which is male. Just like the disabled, young, gay, old, weak and small men who also might feel or be unsafe in male spaces. Women aren't human shields for non macho blokes and our spaces aren't for men who for some reason aren't seen as manly enough for the men's provision.

I think that if the trans rights lobby had been focusing on these issues rather than undermining women's rights at every turn, some solutions would have been found by now.

Imagine how many rape crisis services for trans people could have been funded with the resources that Stonewall have poured into lobbying rape crisis organisations not to provide single sex services for female survivors and lobbying local authorities to withdraw funding from any organisation that doesn't toe the "trans women are women" line.

@Whatafustercluck maybe the TRA community should have been spending their energies campaigning for safe third spaces rather than devoting all energies into demanding admittance into women's spaces.

Imagine how many rape crisis services for trans people could have been funded with the resources that Stonewall have poured into lobbying rape crisis organisations not to provide single sex services for female survivors and lobbying local authorities to withdraw funding from any organisation that doesn't toe the "trans women are women" line.

Excellent observation @MissScarletInTheBallroom

I also think that if you believe your gender identity makes being housed in prison along with members of your own sex a particularly dangerous prospect for you, perhaps you should think twice before committing the sort of crime that attracts a custodial sentence.

The reality is that prisons are horrible, dangerous places. They are where you go to serve time for your crime, they're not supposed to be affirming. And there are many men who are vulnerable in prison, such as gay men, addicts, men with learning disabilities, men from racial minorities. I don't understand why trans identifying men should have additional protection to keep them safe in prison but these other vulnerable men should not. Why are trans people's lives apparently more valuable?

I mean, whoever thought you'd need a vagina to be defined as a woman. 🙄

A lot of media coverage and discussion is rather loosely worded, saying that the Supreme Court has ruled that "the definition of a woman is based on biological sex" when it has done nothing of the sort. It has ruled that instances of the word in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex.

The judgment doesn't alter the fact that, in most everyday instances if I say "woman" I mean someone I perceive to be a woman. And if a person who's undergone male-female gender reassignment wants to think of themselves as a woman, and refer to themselves as a woman in most contexts in conversation, the court judgment doesn't concern itself with that either. They just won't be protected by the Equality Act from being discriminated against on grounds of sex as if they were a biological woman.

Does that mean every new born has to have a genetic test to see if they have a y chromosome or are we assigning boy or girl from outward appearance.

I mean, observing whether they have a penis or not works almost 100% of the time.

If it ain't broke...

Well, largely trans women but i was talking about trans men too tbh since they suffer discrimination too.

97% agree on here

Fantastic news

Actually they might be protected. If they are discriminated against because they are thought to be a woman by the person or body doing the discriminating then they could still claim sex discrimination. The judgement is very clear on this

that the discriminator was wrong about the fact of biological sex is irrelevant

the judgement was carefully delivered and well worded. Very good work from the judges involved

Amd on the very rare occasion there is ambiguity, a simple cheek swab will clarify.

Does what mean that? The Supreme Court judgment certainly doesn't have anything to say about it AFAIK. You can read it here: For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)

How do you think today's judgement might affect trans men?