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.

Very well put @Helleofabore

Yes. Comparators are discussed in the judgement.

'134. First, to demonstrate less favourable treatment in subsection (1) an actual or hypothetical comparator is often relied on to demonstrate that a person without the relevant protected characteristic was or would have been treated more favourably by person A. Such a comparator (actual or hypothetical) must be a person who does not share B’s protected characteristic. Section 23(1) makes clear that, apart from the protected characteristic, there must be “no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case” when determining whether B has been treated less favourably. Accordingly, where sex is the protected characteristic, a woman relying on section 13(1) must compare her treatment with the treatment that was or would have been afforded to a man whose circumstances are not materially different to hers; in other words, a similarly situated man. Where gender reassignment is the protected characteristic, in the case of a male person proposing to or undergoing gender reassignment to the opposite sex, the correct comparator is likely to be a man without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and similarly for a woman (although there may be situations where the comparator’s sex is immaterial to the comparison). See for example, Croft v Royal Mail Group plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1045, [2003] ICR 1425 at para 74.'

So what specifically makes a transwoman a woman in your view? Do you see no differences at all between a transwoman and a woman? If you were to remove the clothes of a transwoman and a woman and stand them side by side would you be looking at two women in your view, even if one of them clearly had a penis? Just curious to know.

Anywhere that is designated single sex.

Employers, workplaces, schools, will have to provide single sex facilities, for example. To comply with H&S regs.

Service providers will do so at their discretion, I imagine, but if they say it's 'women only', it has to be 'women only'. No men, no matter how they identify.

That’s amazing thanks.

That is a big deal then

I’m sure there are some exciting thinkpieces being penned as we speak!

Likely. It will take some work to get some organisations to provide single sex provisions for women . Maybe not though.

Fantastic news!!! At long last we have some sense.

White wrote a whole book about transgender laws in the UK. And has been engaged in at least one cases directly related to this and another about stonewall. One could say that White is very heavily invested.

So I guess mixed sex facilities are the next battleground

What does this mean for Edinburgh rape crisis centre and their long awaited definition of a woman? 🤭

“but if they say it's 'women only', it has to be 'women only'.”

And this is where the language comes into it. And this judgement is very clear that a sex based provision using this language should be expected to be referring to sex. How this translates into practise will be interesting.

We might need to start some campaigning to get some of the shops on board here. What about gyms and swimming pools?

Yes - no more describing things as “women’s” and then in the small print putting “including all those who identify as women”

though I expect it’ll still take more complaints and legal action before organisations start doing the right thing

And you managed to remove your own post hiding your post history🙄

Charming and an A for effort👍

reframing to be a hero?
but sadly asking you questions to encourage you to explain why you posted what you posted about males and their safety is not an argument its a number of question.

AnSolas · Today 14:40

Whatafustercluck · Today 14:12
Common sense at last. And what a relief, just as I was convinced the UK was turning into some kind of Orwellian dystopia.

However, i can't help wondering what this actually means on a practical level. I wholeheartedly agree with the op that the law should protect against discrimination, both for women and trans people. I also agree that women were never seeking for trans people not to have protections.

But it doesn't really answer the very real concerns that trans people have about their own safety. If a trans person who commits a crime can no longer be kept in a women's facility (good), then where do they go, and be safe? If they can no longer be on women's wards in hospital (good), then where do they go, and be safe? If they can no longer be in women's refuges (good), then where is their safe space?

I don't really think the debate has gone away, because the ruling doesn't provide solutions for the trans community. So public services will still be faced with a continued standoff between women's rights and trans rights. The needs of the two protected characteristics are incompatible with one another, and the hard questions still need to be asked. My hope though is that at the very least it will lead to a much needed reasoned, balanced and open conversation, without all the name calling. For too long, this opportunity has been stifled - which helps neither women nor the trans community.
Edited

You only use people/trans/community to mean male in your post

Males who are sent to prison can be "safe" or as safe as the State can manage in a male prison. Females who claimed to be male were not placed in male units. Funny how there was an investigation launched when a woman was transported and once discovered held in segragation until transfered in a mens prison but dangerous males were routinely allowed into the female prisons

Why are you claiming that a male placed on a NHS male ward is unsafe?

Why do you think that there are no male DV refuges?

Why do you think that the lack of provision for males the responsibility of women not the State?

Women are not assigned anything at birth.

Transwomen would not be discriminated against because they still have a space of their own they can use - that is? The one that aligns with their sex.

I'm afraid we can look forward to confrontations and temper tantrums.

Though apparently we will all just shut up if they say it hormonal issues and show us their false birth certificates. So actually, they can just keep accessing women's spaces.

Is it stupidity or wilful ignorance do you think? They are SO arrogant and anti-women what they’ve taken away from today is “A GRC trumps women’s sex”. They can’t wrap their tiny brains around the fact that men don’t win everything.

And they are not in the same group of “woman”

You’re welcome

When TRAs say they’re on the side of marginalised women what they mean is “the marginalised women who agree with us”

Why is everyone so bothered. Just live and let live

When you are listening to someone who is starting from their declared viewpoint that 2+2 = 5, there's probably limited sense in expecting the rest of their viewpoints to be logical, and reality-connected.

The rambling and alternative realities will burble on. The thing is, it will not stand up legally in court, and women now know this . The insurers and legal departments know it too.

If you were sent to prison would it bother you if you were sharing a cell with a man?

How do you suggest the female prisoners who were locked up with TW Karen white & subsequently raped by him should live and let live?

Rubbish - working-class/non-white women are still women. There are no layers of women. Sex is not a spectrum. It’s binary. Stop trying to make trans a subset of women.