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.

The progressives using the M word. Nice.

Bloody hell fire, 😳 a woman is actually needed to be defined as a woman in the eyes of the law? Whatever happened to it just being a fact of life... and nature?

Thank God for that. The womeness of wonen prevails. Hurrah!

In essence when some twit tells a woman 'you HAVE to let him strip search you/ take his clothes off with you/ give you intimate medical care/ join your lesbian group/ come into this women's refuge/ use the women's changing room etc etc because of the Equality Act '

Women now get to hold up this judgement and say no.

That's not true.

And the law is on their side.

So please find that person an alternative space to meet their needs; the women's space is for biological women only. By law. There is no more confusion on this.

The government is a big fat liar:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/13/jk-rowling-keir-starmer-misrepresents-law-woman-definition-labour

We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex

We have always been at war with Eastasia...

Same.

Exactly. And it's why womens' sports are not a space for men who are too physically inadequate to compete successfully against other men.

Gutless wonders.

They 'always (vaguely) supported the protection of single sex spaces (while adding that men could be any sex they liked)' IF it didn't involve them having to actually say no to any men, defend women's rights and equalities, safeguard children, or actually do anything.

Labour loved them the sex fudge.

Shame it no longer exists.

This success is not down to trumpettes or right whingers. It's down to the amazing real life women, left, right and centre, who fought at considerable cost to themselves.👏👏👏

I'm a biological realist and a feminist, of course I'm delighted by this ruling. As are most Mnetters if the poll is anything to go by.😊

Today is a brilliant day for wumben, wimpund and woomud across the country.

This aged like milk didn't it?:

Starmer, formerly the director of public prosecutions, the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales, said: “A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is not just my view, that is actually the law. It has been the law through the combined effects of the 2004 [Gender Recognition] Act and the 2010 [Equality] Act.”

Funnily enough I think the discrimination by perception thing would protect a hypothetical passing transwoman who was excluded from a male-only space because they were perceived as being a woman. It wouldn't apply if they were known to be trans and excluded from a female-only space on that basis, though.

I suppose (to answer my own question, having considered further) the workplace, gym, hospital, bar etc would just defend themselves by saying (i) they didn't exclude the person because they were trans, they excluded them because they were biologically male and/or (ii) the trans woman in question didn't 'pass' anyway: they could perceive that they were male. After all, who can prove something so sujective?

Well you haven't been paying attention then. Plenty of trans people are claiming to have changed sex.
for example the dr in the Sandi Peggie case claims to be a biological female.

I don’t know what trans activists you’ve been talking to but their whole argument is based on ‘a man is a woman if he says he is’ and should therefore be given unfettered access to women only spaces and women’s sports.

It would be a very rare situation where an individuals sex is not identifiable over time in a SSS. Male puberty is not "kind" ( its more likely that a female would "pass") and that women would spot the sex differences faster than men may.

Anyway
Both male knows that he is male and as such has no legal right to access female SSS, even with a GRC.
The correct group for both would be males so the law will not say that just because party A ignored the SSS rule without getting found out that party B gets a free pass to ignore the legislation. So that claim under GR would not create a discrimination case

For anyone looking for the lyrics !
FWS singing

But then the discrimination would be on the basis of gender reassignment. So they would still have legal protection.

Exactly. Reason and reality have reasserted themselves. This wasn't a 'win', it was just a correction of the egregious absurdist bullshit we've had pushed on us for the past twenty odd years.

From today's ruling, I suspect the judge would very kindly say that yes, he may believe this, but legally it is not going to fly. At all.

Screams mother issues.

Just to add: Just seen exactly this on SM.

Man: it's all fine, it'll be case by case, no need to change policies -

Woman: rubbish, yes of course the policies will have to change and no, it is not case by case, read the judgement.

I see a difference between "standing with" (supporting and agreeing) and actively campaigning (risking livelihood, friendships, putting all your energy and spare time into).

Listening to Sky News. The usual one sided 'be kind' crap with a sad faced trans man (who of course works for a trans charity) is bringing out every cliche in the book. All about the poor harmed trans person. 'I would like them to point where it's happening' - when eventually questioned about the other view - except we all know 'it never happened'. Trans Action the charity named so it will of course be totally impartial.

Trans men ie women were never the issue. Entitled, narcissistic men who saw it as a way to invade women's spaces were the issue.

We don’t assign anything at birth, the sex is observed, as it has been for thousands of years.

So does this mean that police will now report crimes committed by men saying they are women as ' a man was arrested for. . . '?

Does this mean the skewing of crime stats will now be rectified?