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.

If trans people don't want to use mixed-sex 'third spaces' they are free to use the spaces of their biological sex

No they really cannot.

I think it was pretty clear in the Hand down actually.

Where an exception is used under the EA based on sex, that means all male people are excluded regardless of their GRC status. The statement does discuss those male people not being discriminated against, but that referred to illegitimate discrimination. Not legitimate discrimination.

Legitimate discrimination based on sex will exclude ALL male people.

But many do already?

Why can some and not others?

trans people should not have to live their lives, othered, siloed and outed.

And women should not have to suffer men in their spaces. Thankfully the law was just confirmed that they do not have to. Those men's needs will need to be met in other ways and additional provisions.

some of the comments on these threads are really worrying for anyone's safety tbh, come on don't dilute issues of greater inequality and discrimination - yes a victory, but we have bigger systems at play here.

and i still can't stand JKR

And yet she speaks so highly of you 😁

Amazing result. Batshit that it needed to be clarified in the first place but there we are.

What fantastic news and a real testimony to ordinary women fighting against governments, misogyny and the patriarchy. That's real feminism for you.

What a relief. Let’s hope the tide goes out on this utter nonsense.

It says that under the EA 2010 there is a protected characteristic of “sex discrimination” which is reserved exclusively for women assigned female birth, and that these protections don’t cover “a person with a GRC in the female gender”. Those latter persons are also protected under the EA and their particular protected characteristic is gender reassignment.

It does not say that trans women are not women, or that they must be confined to third or male spaces.

The ruling reinforces a framework that often benefits cisgender, middle-class, white women - the group most historically to be heard in feminist spaces and institutions. Meanwhile, it has a risk of side-lining the lived experiences of those already navigating layers of exclusion based on race, class and gender identity

intersectionality issues always get lost in these of legal binaries

It stated very clearly that in the language used by the EA, people who want to be categorised as 'trans women' are not 'women' under the EA.

Considering that is the basis of much of feminists discussion, that quote you are rejecting is quite correct, except if the government changes the EA. I doubt that any government will do this, but you obviously think that they will.

If there are any situations were 'trans women are not women' then logically they are not. Because if they were, there would be no way ever to have excluded them from the term. The logic cannot be any different.

Just because a small group of people choose to add new definitions of established words that include the very opposite of what that word was intended to mean, never made it an accepted change by society.

Why?

No such thing as cis. Women are women.

This judgement?

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

Yes, I've read it.

Have you?

As a brown woman from a working class background, I'm delighted by this ruling.

Don't presume to speak for me.

The protected characteristic is sex not sex discrimination. Men and women both have a protected characteristic of sex and are covered by the Equality Act.

Think she will get over it

Because it would be a total violation of their dignity, personhood,
privacy, safety, right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment. I could go on.

It states a GRC does not equate to biological sex. That’s enough for women who’ve tirelessly campaigned to have our spaces, identities and rights recognised. It means the Sandie case can’t happen again because she could state a man is not a woman and shouldn’t be in her woman’s space.

"or that they must be confined to third or male spaces."

It doesn't specify where they are allowed to go, it does specify that if an exception is used under the EA though, that those male people are excluded from that provision.

Oh get a life. She’s has done more for the rights and safety of our daughters and sisters than anybody else since the suffragette movement. She is a bloody war hero.

And why is that the problem of women?

Why can’t they fight for a third space, why do they insist of encroaching on spaces that aren’t theirs?

But when have the TRA contingent ever cared about women's safety?

And if there is any danger towards transwomen it is coming from men. Tackle male violence towards other males and leave women out of it.