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.

Firstly people don’t identify as Lesbian. They just are… And this is part of the problem.. the idea we can just “identify” as anything and expect to be given the rights of those who are. Trans women attracted to women are heterosexual. They are men attracted to women. That’s it. It’s not more complicated than that. Sexual orientation is fact not feeling. Being male or female is fact not feeling. Being 50 not 15 is fact not feeling. Imagine a 50yr old man identifying as a 15yr old boy or girl and everyone saying “oh it’s fine that he’s dating a 14yr old” because he “identifies” as a 15yr old. It’s the same thing. Excusing it because someone decided his rights and feelings were more important than the child’s is exactly how we got here. It’s just that as has been proven for most of history, when it’s women’s rights and feelings being ignored or trampled over everyone just expects us to suck it up and “be kind”. Well it looks like people are being reminded of just how strong and determined women are… Women’s rights, and almost every women’s service that exists were won and built by grassroot organisations, and small groups of women who said no more. And they’ve done it again. A modern day lesson for our daughters that they’ve only seen before in history lessons about the suffragettes.

So there are incidents of men who identify as trans being allowed in female spaces and sexually assaulting/raping/harassing women and you take the voting of those real events and twist those into ‘toxic tropes’ and stereotyping and transphobia?

You have no business being around vulnerable people. The last thing people with vulnerabilities need is someone who twists reality to their own agenda.

As for the 'I am spending my time on much more important stuff' bid for the moral high ground ...

I expect women who are in danger of being locked up with men are happy that people have put their time into this cause, don't you think?

Look nothing has changed- however much you lot want to pretend it has and are going to use this judgement to justify your bigotry.

Currently spaces are allowed to exclude trans ppl if it's deemed reasonable and proportional. So this is the same as before.

The opposite ruling from yesterday would simply mean that specifically trans ppl with grcs (only about 8,000 of those in the UK) couldn't be excluded based on the above provision but ppl without could, while simultaneously asking to see a GRC would also be discriminatory under the act. This was a key issue that lead to the decision as it was made. That's what the justices meant when they said it would make the equality act incoherent. Not that’s it incoherent per se.

The role of the court was to interpret the specific legislation - the EA 2010- that currently exists as it was written. Nothing else. The role of the court is to interpret law, not to make policy.

This is not about defining biology, sex, gender, transness or what it is to be a woman, and nothing about excluding trans people from single sex spaces. It’s about the specific meaning of variations protections under the EA 2010.

Nothing has changed.

@Pickleton1992 “People who identify as lesbian”?

Lesbians don’t “identify as”, they just are. It’s not a sexual preference, it’s a sexual orientation. Only women are lesbians. Any man claiming to be a lesbian is a heterosexual man.

The cope here 😂

@Lostcat you are wrong. Single sex services are going to be provided for a legitimate aim. Single sex services now include females only. Your interpretation is incorrect.

Well, at least we're seeing a live demonstration of how The Righteous are going to spin this.

Currently spaces are allowed to exclude trans ppl if it's deemed reasonable and proportional. So this is the same as before.

Its exactly the same as before.

What bigotry?

@Mba1974 You said it much better than me.

Look nothing has changed- however much you lot want to pretend it has and are going to use this judgement to justify your bigotry.

Currently spaces are allowed to exclude trans ppl if it's deemed reasonable and proportional. So this is the same as before.

The opposite ruling from yesterday would simply mean that specifically trans ppl with grcs (only about 8,000 of those in the UK) couldn't be excluded based on the above provision but ppl without could, while simultaneously, asking to see a GRC would also be discriminatory under the act.

This was a key issue that lead to the decision as it was made. That's what the justices meant when they said it would make the equality act incoherent. Not that’s it incoherent per se.

The role of the court was to interpret the specific legislation - the EA 2010- that currently exists as it was written. Nothing else. The role of the court is to interpret law, not to make policy.

This is not about defining biology, sex, gender, transness or what it is to be a woman, and nothing about excluding trans people from single sex spaces. It’s about the specific meaning of variations protections under the EA 2010.

Nothing has changed.

Oh, we're going for posting the same (incorrect) thing over and over again until the thread fills up?

How Righteously Brave and Stunning.

@Pickleton1992

Biological men cannot be lesbians. Biological women attracted to other Biological women are lesbians. Men can never be lesbians.

It's not difficult.

Biological men attracted to Biological women are straight, whatever clothing they wear or whatever drugs they take or surgery they have had.

Spin, lie, obfuscate, distract, insult, flounce.

The usual dishonesty and malignancy.

I agree that nothing has changed in law. However, many, many organisations (and, as this case showed, right up to the Scottish government) have been disregarding or misinterpreting the law. My employer's policies, for example, state that it is illegal to exclude trans people from the sexed facilities of their choosing. So, in practice, a lot will now have to change. Those toilets, for example, can't be called women's toilets now.

😆

Its just the constant, endless lying that gets me. Telling the truth is an alien concept to them, it seems.

“Currently spaces are allowed to exclude trans ppl if it's deemed reasonable and proportional. So this is the same as before.”

Before yesterday, organisations were being told by extreme trans activists that male people could not be excluded from female single sex provisions. Yes, the EA remains unchanged. However, the advice that someone with a GRC could and should not be excluded from those provision was still being given or pressure was being brought on organisations to ignore the exceptions that were available.

I think the Upton NHS Fife case and the NHS Darlington case both show your claim to be doubtful. Yes, the EA has not changed. But organisations were being told false advice based on the gender reassignment aspect of it.

You are now trying to diminish the impact of the ruling by attempting to say ‘nothing here to see, move on’. It is dishonest to do this in light of what has happened and was still happening .

Well it may very well be illegal.
Your organisation would have to argue that there was a legitimate, reasonable and justifiable aim to exclude trans people from those toilets , which would not discriminate based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
This is the same as it was before.

I wouldn't even bother trying to use logic and fact with that poster, spicemaiden!

They said they'd spent decades working with vulnerable and abused adults and children. Statistically, who is likely to have committed the vast majority of that abuse? Men. But that poster thinks its "transphobic" for women to have a word that defines them as a class and to have legislation that keeps all men out of women's spaces, however those men like to identify themselves.

Make it make sense.

No spaces can not exclude trans people unless they don’t meet the criteria for the space
the criteria is their sex
they will not be allowed to be excluded from the spaces assisted with their sex
there is NO exclusion
I hope that reassures you

if you feel you are in effect excluded because you don’t want to be with your sex group - why do your feelings matter more than the women who have been self excluding from mixed sex trans inclusive groups?

i believe you are also at liberty to create trans-only organisations and groups to support and promote as required , just like women are allowed to. Again be reassured that there is no different treatment or discrimination occurring in law here - you are fully included and identified under equality law

Women have said no. Thank you FWS.

The only reason this appears in any way coherent to you is because you completely fail to understand what it is to be trans. That’s fine, but it’s got nothing to do with law.

Or specifically the judgement yesterday

Ok so here's you chance for a little education. Can you explain to us what it is to be trans?