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.

Trans women are men, with or without a GRC, the judgement specifically refers to biological women, which TW aren’t.

One good reason why!? If TIF’s want to use male spaces and put themselves at risk that is up to them as long as men don’t object. (But I know that the boys at my daughter’s school and their parents will be delighted at this ruling having had to put up with girls invading their privacy for some years now against their expressed wishes). If TIM’s feel at risk in male spaces that is for men to solve not women or girls.. Male on Male violence is not women’s problem to solve.

and i still can't stand JKR

Bet she’s gutted

And why is that the problem of women?

what ab immature thing to say

Quote them. Report them but I think you are talking bullshite.

Excluding them from a provision that they were never entitled to use in the first place is a legitimate act.

Their dignity, privacy and so on cannot be prioritised when a provision is using an available exception under the EA. That was the very basis of this judgement.

No, it is exactly the correct thing to say.

Given that she has no idea who you are she won’t give a f*ck what you think.

Yes you are right protected characteristic is sex “discriminatjon” is obviously not a characteristic

(18) Meaning and workability of other provisions

218:

'Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.'

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

Women are heartily sick of being expected to put themselves out to clean up after men. We're done. Deal with it,

How?!

Women accepting biological men into their space is total violation of their dignity, personhood, privacy, safety, right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment.

So why is to immature to ask why trans people experiencing the above is the problem of women?

Or did you just not want to answer the question?

😂

How is it inhumane to expect a man to use men's facilities but not inhumane to expect women prisoners to be housed with men.

Thank you Arabella.

Again, this judgement does not say that trans people are not entitled to use female spaces

I see the spin, spin spin has begun 🙄

Yep. Almost identical to how TWs danced gleefully all over our fears, isn't it?

Lol. These attempts to smear women's fight for our own words, spaces and rights says more about you than it does about posters here.

How do you think allowing males of any gender identity into the women's changing rooms benefitted the brown Muslim women or orthodox Filipino women who then had no where to use?Or letting then into women's prisons benefitted the overwhelmingly working class and abused women there? Who gave a shit about their lived experience or their intersectionality? Gender ideologues are incredibly privileged, so privileged you can't even see who you're trampling over with your progressive regressive ideology.

because men’s feelings are sooooo much more important than women’s

That’s how we know TW are men because their feelings were always prioritised over women’s

🎉🎉🎉👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻❤️❤️❤️❤️ fan bliddy tastic!!!

If the single sex exceptions have been invoked to provide female only facilities the ruling today confirms that they cannot be used by men who identify as women because they are men

Only because a judge could not rule on something like that. But it means a lot in law and practice. it means that women can say “Hey hang on I’m not happy about sharing a work changing room with a man” and not be accused of bullying, harrasment, bigotry and sacked.

It means that when a trans woman rapes a woman with his penis, she can’t be gaslighted by saying “That couldn’t possibly have happened as there were no men in the vicinity at the time only women”.

It sure diddly-does.

221 - '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.'

Good. About time. 👍