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.

my guess is that businesses (gyms, clothes shops etc) will have to decide if they want to continue to be mixed sex, or have single sex provisions. And if they have the space, to have 3rd (mixed) spaces for people who don't care.

If people are clear about what they want, if there is demand, it will be provided (see the Virgin Gym vs Bannantyne Gym thing). Am interested what happens now to the Hampstead women's pond - since it is clear that trans men cannot insist on using the men's. In theory that should leave the ladies' pond free for women (cannot see the status quo changing any time soon)

I'm not going to post on the thread further, but want to thank those of you who have tried to support my understanding. This conversation may have been happening for a long time but it doesn't mean everyone has engaged with it. Rightly or wrongly.

Those who have tried to ridicule me, if you want people to understand your argument, perhaps this isn't the best way to go about it. I understand you're tired of having to explain, but I came here wanting to learn. I will look
up the references you have given me.

This ruling is 'live and let live'.

Women have the right to protection from discrimination in the provision of goods and services. People with the PC of gender reassignment have the right to protection from discrimination in the provision of goods and services. No one has the right to self identify into a category under the Act for which they do not qualify.

See, live and let live.

@fourbedwinner
No, the biology has not evolved in the last 15 years. A biological woman is still a biological woman as the court ruled today.

This is so true, women need spaces with other women we have bodies that menstruate, that go through a female puberty, that may get pregnant and give birth or miscarry we have post partum bodies and experience menopause, we may have hysterectomies or mastectomies. These are all profoundly female experiences which can potentially make us vulnerable. In a single sex space just for actual women we at least know that all the women in there are all capable to sharing in that experience but no male who identifies as a woman is capable of any of that so he's just an interloper invading these spaces without any real understanding or empathy for what women's experience of their lives, society or their bodies and sex actually is. For them access to those spaces and by extension the women who use them is for validation rather than out of any genuine need.

I agree that when it was published this is exactly what was meant by it. But haven't we progressed and evolved in the past 15 years?

I don't understand why you'd think men 'identifying' as women despite the scientific reality of them being men - and getting access to women's spaces as a result - is progress?

For fuck's sake.

Why can't trans activists let women live, in peace, without being forced to budge over for men, at the expense of our own safety and dignity?

If you can’t define a group, you can’t protect them. 2 women killed per week by men. Never forget.

Your mantra, for it to be honoured, would this require women to be protected from harm and discrimination that courts on the basis of their sex: so yes please, let’s live and indeed let live: let women live free from men in their prison cells, free from male patients on their single sex wards, free from men in the medical examination room, free from men in their rape crisis centres, free from men in their refuges, free from mein in their women only therapy groups, free from male competitors in their sports, and free from males in this changing rooms.

Let women live.

maybe this will help @fourbedwinner

The term 'cis' is meaningless because the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes that has any degree of sensitivity to any of the testosterone that body produces.

There is no word left for female people.

Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’ . When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes.

In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.

But 'cis' is a* *word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.

To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **
and
= (3) Any person who has a female body^^
Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.

maybe better to say get a life.

The other key point is that to achieve equity, women have been afforded greater protections in law (by the sex discrimination act, then the Equality Act).

The law is necessarily unequal in favour of women to allow us an equal chance to participate in society.

The reason this case was called was, ostensibly, because the Scottish government had a rule that said 50% of public boards must be women. This was to address historic imbalance. They then decided men who claimed to be women could take the places reserved for women.

The judgement today clarifies that no, they can't.

Some stats here 88% of those sexually offended against are female, 97% subject to rape are female, 99% of sexual offenders in prison are male. www.sexsegregation.org.uk/by-country-jurisdiction

Women have been afforded single sex spaces as exemptions in the EA, to ensure privacy, safety and dignity.

This is because the EA's basic premises is that everyone must be treated as equals, but that is modified by the exemptions, which are there to try to correct imbalances that impact on groups with protected characteristics.

If you're being genuine about wanting to learn more, the Feminism board is a useful place to start. Tons of information and discussion on there. AIBU (this board) moves so fast, so maybe try FWR? People have more time to explain stuff.

That's not better, it's even more stupid. Are you 12?

That's so lovely of you 😍

If it's such a waste of life, you're free to stop posting. I'm sure we'll all cope with the loss if you've more pressing matters to attend to elsewhere.

Absolutely, the feminism board is a good place to go for info.

Sorry if people have been snappy - we have had years of bad faith engagement and it can be hard to tell if someone is being facetious sometimes.

If you are in good faith then women on the feminist board are generally happy to answer questions.

Link: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights

I had no idea that was the definition! WTF!

The accusations of "transphobia" and "bigotry" seem to be about people daring to say that no one can change sex, there is no magical inner feeling that makes you the opposite sex, and transwomen are men. These are the things that campaigning feminists have fought to have clarified in law, at least as it relates to the 2010 Equality Act.

While I realise they are not currently fashionable things to think or say on the left/in arty and self-proclaimed "progressive" circles, they are in fact true as far as evidence, logic, reason, semantics and law can be applied.

The really interesting question is why anyone thinks they are not true. Why does anyone think a man can actually be a woman, or vice versa? There is no evidence that that change happens physically, functionally, or even in in terms of behaviour patterns such as the very different male and female crime stats. All of these stay the same. You can destroy your sexual function but no one has ever developed the sexual function of the opposite sex. The only way a man can possibly imagine himself to be a woman is by changing the definition of "woman" and deciding he "feels like" what he, a man, thinks being a woman must be like – he cannot ever know what being a woman feels like.

If you think a man can be a woman just by saying so, or by taking hormones or having surgery, or by wearing stereotyped feminine clothes, hair or make-up, or by faking a higher voice.... why? It's probably because you have been told you must think that to be a good person, and not a transphobic bigot, and you haven't questioned that. You should.

Not sure why anyone is bothering to engage with this poster. It's like trying to use logic and grown up arguments against a toddler.

With their 'so what, you got raped', 'Wah transphobic posts - what do you mean which ones, I don't even know' and infantile attempts at derailing it's obvious exactly what they are.

Pitiful and deranged are the words that come to mind.

This is a very insightful and well articulated post. Thank you.

I am really pleased!

Well done to all your of those who fought for this and especially, JKR with all my of the abuse she got for this. She deserves an honour or something.

Shame on those she catapulted to fame that turned on her.

I'm not against trans people. I am an open minded person and I believe that people can look, dress and feel how they feel. However, I do not want to be getting dressed in front of anybody with a cock unless it's someone I fancy!

Thank God that common sense has, finally, prevailed!

Fingers crossed for those poor nurses forced to share a changing room with someone with a cock!