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.

RBW “female” “barrister” on R4 claiming it would still be indiscrimination for trans women to use male toilets. Did he bloody read the judgement.

They never mean the sort of intersectionality that requires them to listen to inconvenient opinion having brown, disabled bisexual women. You're supposed to keep quiet and be used as a rhetorical device.

In this scenario @Lostcat is Dr Upton and @ArabellaScott is Naomi Cunningham so it’s not really fair on that basis, but highly entertaining 🍿

Like RMW gives a flying cat turd about the safety of Butch Lesbians or any kind of lesbian. Or indeed WOMAN.

Late to these threads as I've been at work, but what a relief!

BUT, is there any possibility of a challenge to the ruling? Any higher court, for example?

Great stuff. Common sense.

Just because we can't cure every problem today the 16 April 2025, would you expect us to ignore those that can be resolved until that magic day?
Get real please

Because it’s ‘degrading, cruel and inhumane’ apparently 🥱

Agree with this. The role of mumsnet in giving women a space to talk about all this has been a HUGE part of the story of the pushback against the TRAs. It certainly meant a lot to me when I first peaked and felt scared to say what I thought IRL.

I don't think so. There is quite a way to go. I think we will still have our speech compelled, we will still be forced to use preferred pronouns, and if some male offender tells the police he is a woman, even if arrested for a sex crime, they will have to pander to his delusion/manipulation. He just can't be remanded to a female jail. It's depressing, isn't it?

Robin Moira White (trans barrister) mentioned that the European Court of Human Rights is the next stage if someone wants to challenge the UK Supreme Court’s ruling.

White claims today’s Supreme Court ruling undermines the original ECtHR ruling that obliged the UK government to create the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and that the UK is now in potential legal difficulties.

Bear in mind that White does not have a good record of making correct predictions in this area of law.

I am so happy about this.
So will men who have cheated at sports be giving back their medals etc?

No. The law is clarified within the UK. Could take it to the ECHR, but I doubt that will happen.

This won't encourage more attacks on transgender people, instead it will help all to understand the delineation of precisely where we stand.

Best for all.

Remember that most good people understand agency and consent. This is core to the Equality Act.

Just for anyone who hasn't seen the sections of the EQA 2010 referred to here -

Single sex services

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

Occupational requirements

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1?view=plain

Sports

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/14/5

This might be a stupid question but how will it affect things like toilets in day to day life? My friend is ftm and uses the men’s toilets because of his appearance (I didn’t know he was born female until he told me, I’m using he because that’s how he refers to himself and otherwise it gets confusing)
so now will he have to use the female toilets? Because everyone is going to be saying why is he in here? Or because he “passes” he just carries on using the men’s?

to add I don’t agree with men in womens spaces but this is the other way round and obviously no threat

Are they actually calling Robin female? 😂

👏 yes.

It may mean that there should be gender neutral provisons made for transgender people in the same way as disabled facilities are made available / it’s up to the transgender community to make recommendations I would say , not women

it may mean that they will
be asked to use the facilities associated with their sex and people need to get less uptight about someone’s appearance -that’s very true or transwomen in men’s spaces

I do think the loos are a minor issue - open plan changing areas and showers would be the more interesting question as the sex is usually much more obvious - what does this passing transmen do in that situation ?

the focus on the loo - when in many cases sex separate facilities are not provided anyway - is always interesting to me

Thanks for this. Do we know where is designated single sex?

I’m really happy about this but not sure of implications.

It does and it does. And it’s simply clarifying what has always been the case. A much welcomed clarification.

I’m thinking about all those women, the most vulnerable of them who are in prisons or refuges who will now be protected. Of girls who were having to compete in sports against boys going through puberty. Of Lesbians who were back to having to sneak about to meet in groups to exclude the heterosexual males calling themselves lesbians and intruding on gay women’s spaces. This is the judgement we needed to reverse that carnage.

Exactly

The judgement makes it clear that your friend has no right to be in a men's single sex provision. That's it. There are no toilet police, if she 'passes' maybe she won't be clocked (though passing transpeople are approximately as common as unicorns).