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.

Honestly, you’d think they’d know by now that shutting up is the last thing we’re going to do! This whole judgement has been brought about by women who SPECIFICALLY won’t stfu 😂😂

The protections for 'transwomen' do not extend to their access to single sec spaces that aren't theirs.

As a brown, disabled, bi woman, I'm delighted by the ruling. In my experience, trans advocates are the ones who mocked one of my disabilities (cPTSD, which can easily be triggered by trans women in women's spaces) and completely discounted the effects on me and many other women who had been sexually assaulted.

It absolutely does mean that transwomen are men, and must stay out of any spaces and services reserved for women. It could not be any clearer.

Living in Scotland I'm mostly relieved that this judgement has been made and I'm glad that the Scottish govt is going to have to re-examine a lot of what they were forcing.

Does this mean we are totally reliant on the business declaring a space to be single sex only? What if they just declare spaces to be mixed sex like Marks and Spencers or fail to label spaces at all? Any ideas please?

A mixed sex space is mixed sex, yes.

If a space is marked for 'women' then it's for biological women only. No men. No matter how long their hair is, what they wear, or what kind of certificate they can produce.

When people have to resort to "La la la la la I can't hear you" as an argument, it does kind of suggest that logic analysis and legal evidence aren't their strong points - either that or they've realised that critical thinking and reasoned argument don't usefully apply to "TWAW" style magical thinking.

I have to say Arabella you are on fire today, and I am totally here for it 😂🥰

Seeing as only women can use women’s spaces then the only trans people who can use womens spaces are trans men. 👍🏻. Which is fine, because they’re female.

Good.

Now they can actually protect trans people as well - because when they are not recorded as such, how can it possible to identify if they are being discriminated against or abused on the basis of being trans?

Sure Jan.

The PC of gender reassignment means that you cannot be subject to discrimination due to your gender reassignment status.

So if a trans identified man is not allowed to do something because he's trans that another man has been allowed to do he will have been discriminated against on the basis of his PC of GR.

If a trans identified man is not allowed to do something that a woman has been allowed to do but no other men have been allowed to do he will have been discriminated against on the basis of his sex. If SSE apply then he will not have been subject to unlawful discrimination

No. It means that there are specific protections under the EA reserved for women assigned female at birth, just as there are specific protections under the EA for trans women on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Yes and those protections include the provision of services to women, women’s groups, jobs with a genuine occupational requirement that they be filled by a woman. Protections for trans people don’t include encroaching on women’s spaces, because they aren’t women. Literally the premise this case was brought.

Not 'assigned at birth', stop with that phrase now. It's a clear and unambiguous statement women are biologically female. Observed in utero and clarified at birth. Obviously and undisputable is that the person giving birth is female.

Listening to RMW on PM with Evan Davis:

RMW is opining that men claiming womanhood can still use female spaces such as toilets because it would be direct discrimination to stop them from using such spaces. 🤷‍♀️

RMW is also claiming that because it would be ‘unworkable’ to stop men from using female spaces such as toilets (because there are no bouncers on the doors) it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to say that female toilets are female only 🙄

RMW now claiming butch lesbians are at risk of attack if we make female spaces female only.

Previously, Michael Foran was interviewed by Davis and explained the above opinions of RMW are all incorrect.

Women’s only spa you say, where does such a magical place exist?

Who's RMW?

Robin Moira White - Barrister

Thank you.

All of it 😂

Thank fuck sanity has prevailed

This is an Olympian feat of mental gymnastics.

In Japan they have women only and men only and mixed onsen (heated or geothermal spa pools)

There seems to be the constant cycling around of ‘illegitimate’ and ‘legitimate’ discrimination. And ignoring that male people who access provisions that they are excluded from by using exceptions under the EA would be accessing additional privileges (as stated in the hand down this morning).

Simply repeating that some male people have the protection of the gender reassignment characteristic ignores the above. It ignores what the hand down stated this morning quite blatantly. It is remarkable to see this level of dismissal of what has been clearly stated.

I can only assume it is coming from discussion by extreme trans activists who are trying to dismiss the finding to suit themselves again