Page 37 | Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women'

everythingthelighttouches · 2025-04-16T09:10:31+00:00

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.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 02:55

JustGotToKeepOnKeepingOn · 16/04/2025 12:53

I am utterly relieved too. I have an ASD DD who has been swept up in all this nonsense and thinks she’s trans, when she’s actually lesbian. I hope this is the end of it all for our vulnerable young girls.

Show quote history

I wonder how many people who dismiss us as being 'anti-trans' (read: anti-men) don't realise that not only are they support a very misogynistic ideology, but a deeply homophobic ideology. How do they square this in their minds I wonder. They think they're progressive. How is homophobia 'progressive'?

FruityCider · 17/04/2025 03:04

JandamiHash · 17/04/2025 02:11

The only people likely to target her are men with penises who demand she should be attracted to them because of how they identify

Show quote history

As a bisexual woman, I've only ever been targetted by straight, 'natal' women in toilets and things. As a teenager, that meant flushing my clothes down the toilet, pushing me in to thornbushes and telling the teacher I was 'staring' at them. As recently as last week, it was a dirty look in a changing room until they saw my massive norks. (I have had to shave my head and I'm muscular and tall)

On the other hand, I am regularly surrounded by trans women, trans men, nb people. I have never felt judged, threatened, stared at, disrespected (yes, including when I turned down advances!) by a single one of them. Ever. Not as a bisexual feminine looking woman, not as a very, very butch looking woman. I honestly could be mistaken for a 'man' on first look right now. And let me tell you - the first person to question me is going to get a short shrift from me or one of my mates.

This court judgement doesn't define gender, it defines sex. I will fight to the back tooth for people to be allowed to call themselves whatever they like, and pee where they like, and for professional people to dictate where people go in sensitive spaces such as hospitals, with compassion and on a case by case basis. The right to ones own identity is paramount.

Jumpingthruhoops · 17/04/2025 03:14

Moonshinerso · 16/04/2025 11:03

Hopefully the term’ cis woman’ can be obsolete now.

I absolutely HATE this term! When you object to it, you're always 'schooled' that 'it just means not trans'. We already have a phrase that means 'not trans'... it's woman. We don't need a qualifier!
Also love it how we're also told we 'must' use this term, by those who insist on not being 'misgendered'. Erm...

Clarabell77 · 17/04/2025 03:17

ItsUpToYou · 16/04/2025 10:40

Am I being a bit thick here? What else could it possibly mean? I avoid most sex and gender discussions on MN as I often disagree with the majority and don’t want to be piled on, but even as someone who has no issue with trans people, I thought the argument had always been the sex=biological? I’ve not come across any trans people or “trans activists” that disagree with this.

You clearly missed doctor Upton claiming at a tribunal that sex is a “nebulous dog whistle”.

Clarabell77 · 17/04/2025 03:27

Brefugee · 16/04/2025 22:13

the problem i am seeing is that it is being largely touted as a blow to trans people.

Some of my (very woke) friends on fb are whining on about it and it's getting boring now.

The fact is that trans people have all the human rights this evening that they had this morning. Women now know that we are women, and that a piece of paper or declaration will not mean that a man is a woman for legal purposes. That fact gives stability, and (if applied consistently and properly from now on) means that EVERYONE knows where we stand.

Trans people have the protections they need - one thing that is consistently overlooked is pregnant trans men (yeah, i can't even think about that right now) will have all the maternity protections they need. That is a massive step forwards for them.

Would trans men not have had maternity provisions before though, as they’d have applied due to the fact they were pregnant/had given birth regardless of identifying as a man?

Lex345 · 17/04/2025 03:50

Jumpingthruhoops · 17/04/2025 03:14

I absolutely HATE this term! When you object to it, you're always 'schooled' that 'it just means not trans'. We already have a phrase that means 'not trans'... it's woman. We don't need a qualifier!
Also love it how we're also told we 'must' use this term, by those who insist on not being 'misgendered'. Erm...

Show quote history

This, 1000%. I fully support people having the right to identify themselves through whichever label they choose. That does not give someone the right to force a label upon me. I never understand why people would think it is ok for them to do this, whilst insisting on their right to choose their own label.

TeaAndTattoos · 17/04/2025 04:14

Brilliant decision this is what we needed.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 04:15

FruityCider · 17/04/2025 03:04

As a bisexual woman, I've only ever been targetted by straight, 'natal' women in toilets and things. As a teenager, that meant flushing my clothes down the toilet, pushing me in to thornbushes and telling the teacher I was 'staring' at them. As recently as last week, it was a dirty look in a changing room until they saw my massive norks. (I have had to shave my head and I'm muscular and tall)

On the other hand, I am regularly surrounded by trans women, trans men, nb people. I have never felt judged, threatened, stared at, disrespected (yes, including when I turned down advances!) by a single one of them. Ever. Not as a bisexual feminine looking woman, not as a very, very butch looking woman. I honestly could be mistaken for a 'man' on first look right now. And let me tell you - the first person to question me is going to get a short shrift from me or one of my mates.

This court judgement doesn't define gender, it defines sex. I will fight to the back tooth for people to be allowed to call themselves whatever they like, and pee where they like, and for professional people to dictate where people go in sensitive spaces such as hospitals, with compassion and on a case by case basis. The right to ones own identity is paramount.

Show quote history

This court judgement doesn't define gender, it defines sex. I will fight to the back tooth for people to be allowed to call themselves whatever they like, and pee where they like, and for professional people to dictate where people go in sensitive spaces such as hospitals, with compassion and on a case by case basis. The right to ones own identity is paramount.

Where people pee is determined by SEX, though. Not gender. Your 'identity' does not give you the right to violate other women's rights and boundaries.

FruityCider · 17/04/2025 04:23

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 04:15

This court judgement doesn't define gender, it defines sex. I will fight to the back tooth for people to be allowed to call themselves whatever they like, and pee where they like, and for professional people to dictate where people go in sensitive spaces such as hospitals, with compassion and on a case by case basis. The right to ones own identity is paramount.

Where people pee is determined by SEX, though. Not gender. Your 'identity' does not give you the right to violate other women's rights and boundaries.

Show quote history

That's not true though is it. A person could look like they might have 'male' sex organs. It doesn't give you the right to question whether or not they belong in a toilet. If you saw me, all 6'3 of me in a bathroom, from behind, with a bald head due to chemo, metal band tank top, or sports bra, hair on my back due to PCOS, muscles because I work out and am on (medically necessary) steroids, would you feel the right as the woman did today, to stare at me, cough, and go to open your mouth? To question whether or not I belong?

This rhetoric is not just going to harm trans people. Whether or not people have the right to identify themselves affects everybody.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 04:45

FruityCider · 17/04/2025 04:23

That's not true though is it. A person could look like they might have 'male' sex organs. It doesn't give you the right to question whether or not they belong in a toilet. If you saw me, all 6'3 of me in a bathroom, from behind, with a bald head due to chemo, metal band tank top, or sports bra, hair on my back due to PCOS, muscles because I work out and am on (medically necessary) steroids, would you feel the right as the woman did today, to stare at me, cough, and go to open your mouth? To question whether or not I belong?

This rhetoric is not just going to harm trans people. Whether or not people have the right to identify themselves affects everybody.

Show quote history

Yes it does give us that right to question. Because it's our female only spaces, and if we see anyone who might look male we HAVE THE RIGHT to question. We MUST do so. For our protection and the protection of other females there. It is our duty to do so. And most gender non-conforming females understand and are thankful we do so and don't take any issues with it.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 04:50

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 16:00

Transwomen are not women and never were and never will be

Thats not what the judgement says though at all.

Show quote history

Yes, it IS what the judgement says. Maybe read it yourself. It says woman is based on biological sex. That MEANS, no male is a woman.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 04:52

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 16:08

The type of “triumphing” going on in this thread to the detriment of trans people’s safety and wellbeing is exactly what the court itself was very explicit in trying to combat.

Please note paragraph 2 of the judgement :

“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on… the meanings of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010”.

How are males 'unsafe'? How is it to the detriment of male's safety?

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 04:53

placemats · 16/04/2025 16:08

Thanks @BackToLurk for highlighting that after 14 years of Government the Tories didn't lift a finger to do sny changes.

Just a reminder regarding this Labour party Government.

Sunak made an order that hospitals have female only wards.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:00

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 16:16

Well TRAs have delighted in women being less safe

transphobic generalisation.

i want trans people to be safe but not at the expense of women and girls

There is no need for anyone’s safety to be at the expense of anyone else’s. Again, transphobic statement.

Stonewall and other TRAs could have campaigned for third spaces and trans facilities but they didn’t

This judgement doesn’t mean that trans people should have “third spaces”. Trans people are still protected under the act, and their protected characteristic is gender reassignment . trans people should not have to live their lives, othered, siloed and outed.

Show quote history

transphobic generalisation.

It's the TRUTH. By putting males in female only intimate safe single sex spaces, they have wilfully made females unsafe. WILFULLY!

There is no need for anyone’s safety to be at the expense of anyone else’s. Again, transphobic statement.

Yet there IS by trans own activism. So it's not 'twwwaannnsphobia', it's femphobia from you.

This judgement doesn’t mean that trans people should have “third spaces”. Trans people are still protected under the act, and their protected characteristic is gender reassignment . trans people should not have to live their lives, othered, siloed and outed.

Yes, it does. GRC is now made null and void. FEMALES should not have to live our lives in fear of males with a mental illness. If males don't want to live their lives "othered, siloed and outed" then USE THE FUCKING MALE FACILITIES.

It really is as simple as that. Females have had enough of this hateful femphobic and misogynistic cult, and we are taking our stuff back! Deal with it! We WON'T EVER give in defending our rights. Trans were never going to win in their hate campaign against females long term.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:02

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 16:22

I get that they felt they didn't successfully fit into the male space because they were inadequate, for myriad reasons. But women don't want your spiteful inadequacies in our space either.
So, off you fuck.

wow.
wow wow wow wow wow.

So awful that this is already what the judgement is inciting. The judgement in itself it’s actually reasonable/ innocuous in what it does- but this is the true character of the danger/ damage it does.

Show quote history

How dare women be angry, right? How dare we enjoy getting our right back!

Did you honestly think we'd give in? Is that what you Mens Rights Activists truly thought?

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:05

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 16:32

If trans people don't want to use mixed-sex 'third spaces' they are free to use the spaces of their biological sex

No they really cannot.

Show quote history

Yes they can, and they should. And the WILL. Because we will never give in until every last male ('transwoman') is out of our female only spaces. NEVER!

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:08

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 16:41

It says that under the EA 2010 there is a protected characteristic of “sex discrimination” which is reserved exclusively for women assigned female birth, and that these protections don’t cover “a person with a GRC in the female gender”. Those latter persons are also protected under the EA and their particular protected characteristic is gender reassignment.

It does not say that trans women are not women, or that they must be confined to third or male spaces.

Edited

Show quote history

Firstly, no one is "assigned" anything at birth. Sex is assigned the moment the sperm enters the ova. And is observed at the 20 week scan and again at birth.

It says woman means female biological sex. A male is not a woman BY....THAT....DEFINITION.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:09

mumsthewordi · 16/04/2025 16:41

The ruling reinforces a framework that often benefits cisgender, middle-class, white women - the group most historically to be heard in feminist spaces and institutions. Meanwhile, it has a risk of side-lining the lived experiences of those already navigating layers of exclusion based on race, class and gender identity

intersectionality issues always get lost in these of legal binaries

There is no such thing as 'cisgender'.

The ruling benefits FEMALES of all ages, colour, class and creed.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:12

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 16:44

Because it would be a total violation of their dignity, personhood,
privacy, safety, right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment. I could go on.

Show quote history

Yet it's ok for females to suffer a total violation of their dignity, personhood,
privacy, safety, right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment.

Males are safe in male spaces. Transwomen themselves have repeatedly said they are safe in the males, the worst they get is a look or smirk. So that makes a liar out of you. A male does NOT get to violate the rights of females to not suffer total violation of their dignity, personhood, privacy, safety, right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment just because he puts on a dress. Female rights come first.

Women are not HUMAN SHIELDS for males in dresses.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:16

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 16:45

And why is that the problem of women?

what ab immature thing to say

Why is male on male violence not being the problem of women 'immature'? I think your own arguments are very immature.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 17/04/2025 05:18

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:12

Yet it's ok for females to suffer a total violation of their dignity, personhood,
privacy, safety, right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment.

Males are safe in male spaces. Transwomen themselves have repeatedly said they are safe in the males, the worst they get is a look or smirk. So that makes a liar out of you. A male does NOT get to violate the rights of females to not suffer total violation of their dignity, personhood, privacy, safety, right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment just because he puts on a dress. Female rights come first.

Women are not HUMAN SHIELDS for males in dresses.

Edited

Show quote history

Yes, comments such as this from @Lostcat and others really sicken me.

If your sense of dignity and personhood requires you (a man) to share intimate spaces with women who do not consent to you being there and feel uncomfortable, unsafe and even traumatised by your presence, that is a YOU problem, and something you need to work on by yourself.

We are not non playable characters in the game of your life.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:23

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 16:52

This is a highly divisive and transphobic generalisation, that says a lot about where you are coming from

Show quote history

No, it is not twwwannnnsphobic. It is the TRUTH. Transwomen enjoy threatening us with rape and being burned alive, stabbed and murder. They tell us 'too bad' when we say we feel threatened by males in our spaces. That you don't see that these are your mob, says a lot where you are coming from. Which is Male Supremacy. These are your mob. You are what you hang with (or support) - feel proud of yourself:

Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women'

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:29

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 17:07

It allows for the possibility that in some cases particular rights , entitlements and services etc may be reserved for women assigned female at birth, based on a specific protected characteristic of “sex” (as understood under the EA 2010), as long as that would not also unreasonably discriminate against/ violate protections for trans women on the grounds of gender reassignment, who are also protected in the act, of course.

It does not mean that trans women are not women , or not welcome in female spaces.

Show quote history

I re-post: Firstly, no one is "assigned" anything at birth. Sex is assigned the moment the sperm enters the ova. And is observed at the 20 week scan and again at birth.

Secondly it says woman means female biological sex. A male is not a woman BY....THAT....DEFINITION. You are wrong, and are making a fool of yourself.

DoddlesMcDoddle · 17/04/2025 05:32

Lostcat · 16/04/2025 17:20

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.

Show quote history

No one is "assigned" anything at birth. Sex is assigned the moment the sperm enters the ova. And is observed at the 20 week scan and again at birth. Your cult speak is embarrassing in it's biological ignorance.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 17/04/2025 05:34

FruityCider · 17/04/2025 04:23

That's not true though is it. A person could look like they might have 'male' sex organs. It doesn't give you the right to question whether or not they belong in a toilet. If you saw me, all 6'3 of me in a bathroom, from behind, with a bald head due to chemo, metal band tank top, or sports bra, hair on my back due to PCOS, muscles because I work out and am on (medically necessary) steroids, would you feel the right as the woman did today, to stare at me, cough, and go to open your mouth? To question whether or not I belong?

This rhetoric is not just going to harm trans people. Whether or not people have the right to identify themselves affects everybody.

Show quote history

What about women's right to identify ourselves as members of a sex class which does not include any male, however feminine those males might believe they feel?