Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

1000 replies

everythingthelighttouches · 16/04/2025 10:10

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.

Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women'
OP posts:
Thread gallery
30
theDudesmummy · 16/04/2025 12:32

Government spokesperson "We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.
This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government".

So, what about Keir "it should not be said that a woman doesn't have a penis, it's not right" Starmer and David "grow your own cervix" Lammy then? Do they now agree that the bepenised "women" of whom they speak should not be in the "single sex spaces" or what? Or that the freshly becervixed ones should or should not?

Twoshoesnewshoes · 16/04/2025 12:33

Also feeling emotional- initially so jubilant but now I feel angry and weirdly tearful that this situation could ever happen. It’s so terrifying, the power of misogyny and patriarchy and often doubled down by women themselves.
I’d live to think the issues of the past decade have finally been resolved but actually I’m wary of the punishment to come.

UnctuousUnicorns · 16/04/2025 12:34

TheSecondMrsCampbellBlack · 16/04/2025 12:29

Yep. Or having scientists confirm that the earth is round

Or that everybody has the mutual, inalienable right to choose to have, or not to have, a sexual relationship with anybody else, for. whatever. reason. End of story.

FOJN · 16/04/2025 12:34

ItsUpToYou · 16/04/2025 12:20

Of course I have. My point is that any trans supporters I have come across IRL (including trans people) agree that this is a piss take. They agree that sex =/= gender. It’s known within that community that there is a right wing push to suggest otherwise, and it (generally) doesn’t come from trans people themselves.

Bullshit. The internet is forever so the evidence that this is not a right wing conspiracy to discredit trans people is there if you are even remotely interested. The right wing only seized on this issue in about 2020, until then it was just women being assaulted and taken to court for stating facts about biology.

Your opinions are informed by your need to seem virtuous rather than facts.

oviraptor21 · 16/04/2025 12:35

Agreeing with many.
Just relief.
Such worrying times.
Still much to be done to undo all the madnesses that have occurred over the years but this is a welcome step in the direction of reality.

GCAcademic · 16/04/2025 12:39

NImumconfused · 16/04/2025 11:59

Is that "can" or "have to" though, that's what I'm not quite clear about?

For example, at work we have gents and ladies toilets. Our equality training says trans people can use the toilets of their acquired gender, and that other employees can not object and shouldn't question them about this. Does this ruling mean they now have to change their rules so that trans people use the facilities for their biological sex, or can they now just declare the toilets separated on the basis of gender rather than sex and carry on as they are? That's the bit I'm not totally understanding.

Or in the Brighton case about refusing to exclude transwomen from the women's support group, they now can't call it a women's group and still include transwomen, but there's no obligation on them to actually provide a women's group if they don't want to?

What would they call those single gender toilets, now that it's been established that "woman" relates to biological sex? It's not like there is any definition of gender, after all.

Those toilets, if they have gaps around the door and no self-contained hand-washing facilities are now illegal, in that they don't fit the HSE requirements for mixed-sex facilties.

I wonder if organisations can start to sue Stonewall for all the costs of putting this right, given that they have systematically and deliberately misrepresented the law?

RufustheFactuaIReindeer · 16/04/2025 12:39

skipdiddyskip · 16/04/2025 12:27

This is a lovely opinion to see on MN. Sometimes I worry that some of the talk on the subject goes too far. Recognising and celebrating a decision that supports that “woman” refers to biological sex while also accepting that trans women require legal protection from discrimination is such a balanced way to look at it!

This has been the case for years

RufustheFactuaIReindeer · 16/04/2025 12:39

On MN I mean…

Calyx72 · 16/04/2025 12:39

Absolutely relieved and delighted. Will be celebrating this evening after work. For Women Scotland and everyone who kept working for Women’s safety as well as common sense, to untangle the fankle that Nicola Sturgeon’s ridiculous GRA pushed on us. Reality wins, sex matters. Thank heavens.

FoxedByACat · 16/04/2025 12:40

NImumconfused · 16/04/2025 11:59

Is that "can" or "have to" though, that's what I'm not quite clear about?

For example, at work we have gents and ladies toilets. Our equality training says trans people can use the toilets of their acquired gender, and that other employees can not object and shouldn't question them about this. Does this ruling mean they now have to change their rules so that trans people use the facilities for their biological sex, or can they now just declare the toilets separated on the basis of gender rather than sex and carry on as they are? That's the bit I'm not totally understanding.

Or in the Brighton case about refusing to exclude transwomen from the women's support group, they now can't call it a women's group and still include transwomen, but there's no obligation on them to actually provide a women's group if they don't want to?

I believe that the employees are entitled to single sex facilities and are therefore entitled to object to current arrangements and this ruling backs their legal protection to be allowed to object without fear of reprisal. And yes, the employer should be providing single sex toilets or fully gender/sex neutral ie fully enclosed (floor to ceiling) with a basin in the room with the toilet.

Appledrop · 16/04/2025 12:43

Fantastic news! Common sense has triumphed. I am incredibly relieved and thrilled by this ruling. Even shed a tear.

ByKhakiPoet · 16/04/2025 12:45

In the gap between great expectations (of government/society) and low delivery, humiliation and resentment grow. History shows us that when political choice is lacking and people see no prospect of relief, they become highly susceptible to the transfer of blame. This transfer—attacking refugees and fomenting culture wars—is already well under way. Techniques of distraction—scapegoating, an intense focus on issues that have little impact on general welfare (woke academics, curatorial decisions in museums and historic houses, unisex bathrooms, young people allegedly identifying as cats) coupled with frustration and the transfer of blame, open the door to authoritarianism.
George Monbiot and Peter Hutchinson, The Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism

UnctuousUnicorns · 16/04/2025 12:49

"And yes, the employer should be providing single sex toilets or fully gender/sex neutral ie fully enclosed (floor to ceiling) with a basin in the room with the toilet."

In many cases, that'll be the accessible toilet then...

ChristabelHolloway · 16/04/2025 12:52

MidnightPatrol · 16/04/2025 10:36

I was very interested (and engaged) in this debate but had to step away from it, for my own sanity, and because it was toxic.

I have never seen such abuse against women for simply stating facts, and wanting to defend their own hard won rights.

We knew this all along of course - but we are women because of our sex, not our ‘gender identity’.

+1

JustGotToKeepOnKeepingOn · 16/04/2025 12:53

pinkingshears · 16/04/2025 10:58

I am utterly relieved. I'm the parent of a female young person who has been told she 'must be Trans' if she had feelings for other female young people (she does, we chatted about it & she said she was gay). But the school 'Trans support' person (who is also the ASD support worker) phoned me with the 'changed name & pronouns she & yp had decided on today' & when I was initially confused (she called up talking about 'your son, X') I was accused of 'trans hate speech'. My yp is Autistic & semi verbal. We are in Scotland. Sorry to give anecdata, but this ruling protects all women, including my YP.

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.

JandamiHash · 16/04/2025 12:56

EnjoythemoneyJane · 16/04/2025 11:30

And that a woman could be raped whilst in hospital and be gaslit for two years by both police and the NHS (until she had a mental breakdown), because the legal act of rape can only carried out by a man and apparently there “were no men on the ward”. Just a woman with a penis who’d self-identified as female and then carried out a violent sexual assault.

Instead of the criminal investigation and prosecution there should have been, his right to deny biological reality was prioritised by two instruments of the state - our health service and our police force - over a real woman’s basic rights as a human being.

This was the case highlighted by Baroness Nicholson in the House of Lords at the zenith of this unbelievable madness.

Fuck all of them sideways and backwards that any one of us should have had to go through this in the name of some men’s rights whacked out political ideology. Fuck them.

Edited

I hadn’t heard of this case and just had to google to check you aren’t pulling our legs. My god. I’m absolutely flummoxed. This is so wrong - the NHS party line to protect men in dresses is absolutely petrifying

BunfightBetty · 16/04/2025 12:56

Been in meetings all morning, so only just been able to check the decision. I cried with joy and relief on the streets. Very emotional.

Not so long ago I would have felt confident that truth, reason, intelligence, fairness, justice and sanity would prevail. But having seen so many apparently intelligent people beclown themselves over this issue for so long, being happy to make utter fools of themselves and shit over the rights of women, had led me to a place of fear and uncertainty. Thank fuck reason prevailed.

So much gratitude for For Women Scotland and everyone else who have stuck their necks out for us all.

CameltoeParkerBowles · 16/04/2025 12:58

FortyElephants · 16/04/2025 10:22

Thank fuck for that

Yes - this! Who'd have thought, for the last few millenia, that the Supreme Court should have to rule on a simple, self-evident, commonsense fact like this one. Thank fuck indeed that they did the sensible thing.

Hoppinggreen · 16/04/2025 12:58

Some one on my FB (with a TW son) is saying that she hopes all us anti Trans people will now be happy with all the bearded muscular TM in our toilets instead of TW (who apparently are undetectable)
I said yes, I was , very much so.

Sameoldsameoldsame · 16/04/2025 12:58

It's a shame it took a court case to understand biological reality.

I'm done with this nonsense that men can transition to women and vice versus. Sex is fixed. The poor vulnerable children sold the lie that if they dislike being a particular sex they can change to the other one. Laughable if not incredibly sad.

Now keep biological men OUT OF BIOLOGICAL WOMENS SAFE SPACES.

NotMeekNotObedient · 16/04/2025 13:00

Great news! Thank you to all the brave women who have fought for this. It can be a lonely position right now.

TooBigForMyBoots · 16/04/2025 13:01

This is brilliant news.🎉🎉🎉🎆

TheArcher · 16/04/2025 13:02

Thank goodness 🎉

ConstitutionHill · 16/04/2025 13:06

Looks like the Guardian is still workshopping how to position this piece of news?

EnjoythemoneyJane · 16/04/2025 13:06

JandamiHash · 16/04/2025 12:56

I hadn’t heard of this case and just had to google to check you aren’t pulling our legs. My god. I’m absolutely flummoxed. This is so wrong - the NHS party line to protect men in dresses is absolutely petrifying

Quite the headfuck, isn’t it?

And so shocking that so very many people on the other side of the debate don’t seem to understand that this is fundamentally what they’re supporting - not just the rollback of women’s sex-specific rights and protections but the literal erasure of women’s rights as human beings.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread