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.

They still can’t let men in the female toilets.

Yes, this ^

Well done women of Scotland. I thank you for your tenacity and lack of fear against horrific abuse.

😂

Look, take the win where we can. If it had been a female judge, the men would call bias.
So yes grrr, but at least the man judge had common sense!

Now can we define what an animal is in oder to put an end to the I identify as a cat bollocks

Agreed. Women, at the beginning of all this, were influenced by our social conditioning to be kind and accommodating and were subsequently told to die in a grease fire, received death and rape threats, were deplatformed, attacked at women's events etc etc if they tried to point out any conflict of rights.

So no. Men can work to be more tolerant and accommodating of their fellow men, instead of expecting women to be -

Everyone's mummy
Support humans
Human shields
Non character players

So much law has been made up and forced on employees in ‘training’ by Stonewall and other activist groups.

Now we know it simply isn’t true that Fred can sit in the ladies’ loo if he says he feels female. Support groups for rape victims don’t have to include males, however motivated they are to penetrate. Lesbian dating apps can kick out the men.

There were 5 Judges. Two of them women.

Lord Reed
Lord Hodge
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lady Rose
Lady Simler

The law on workplace SSS
section c & h

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

Sanitary conveniences
20.—(1) Suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences shall be provided at readily accessible places.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless—
(a)the rooms containing them are adequately ventilated and lit;
(b)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and
(c)separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for
• men and
• women
except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.
(3) It shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement in paragraph (1) to provide sufficient sanitary conveniences in a workplace which is not a new workplace, a modification, an extension or a conversion and which, immediately before this regulation came into force in respect of it, was subject to the provisions of the Factories Act 1961, if sanitary conveniences are provided in accordance with the provisions of Part II of Schedule 1.

Washing facilities
21.—(1) Suitable and sufficient washing facilities, including showers if required by the nature of the work or for health reasons, shall be provided at readily accessible places.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), washing facilities shall not be suitable unless—
(a)they are provided in the immediate vicinity of every sanitary convenience, whether or not provided elsewhere as well;
(b)they are provided in the vicinity of any changing rooms required by these Regulations, whether or not provided elsewhere as well;
(c)they include a supply of clean hot and cold, or warm, water (which shall be running water so far as is practicable);
(d)they include soap or other suitable means of cleaning;
(e)they include towels or other suitable means of drying;
(f)the rooms containing them are sufficiently ventilated and lit;
(g)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and
(h)separate facilities are provided for
• men and
• women,
except where and so far as they are provided in a room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside and the facilities in each such room are intended to be used by only one person at a time.
(3) Paragraph (2)(h) shall not apply to facilities which are provided for washing hands, forearms and face only.

If the employer is allowing males in the "womens area" they have no provision for women as the court rule is women can not include a subsection of males. (Men dont include females either)
So now all of the women and men in the workplace are being discriminated against as they dont have SSS.

If I remember Brighton provided a male only grouptoo? However they are using tax money to provide a mental health service so once the service begin to break down into groups they need to prove that they are not discriminating directly or indirectly. Organising services to prevent some service users accessing a service is discrimination plus a ineffective/ misuse of public funds

Truly insane that the Supreme Court has had to rule on such a fundamental fact.

Not sure some of the statements from orgs like Stonewall are very helpful or responsible. If they're concerned about the wellbeing of trans people, why issue a scare-mongering statement suggesting that rights have been taken away when the judgment was explicit that wasn't the case.

The fact this even had to happen is terrifying.

Have you heard of Dr Upton?

Good.

I feel quite emotional. Finally sanity is prevailing. Thank you, thank you Women of Scotland, JK Rowling and all the other amazing women that have tirelessly campaigned on this issue.

My TWAW friends are very quiet today.

Or ERCC?
Or Mridul Wadhwa?
Or the Forensic Medical Examiner Services Bill?
Or the SPS's current updated policy?

And these are examples just from Scotland. It's even been handily collated into a (best selling) book called 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht'.

I've no time at all now for people who deliberately avoided the issue.

Kindly, perhaps you thought that because you actively avoid the discussions on here about sex and gender.

The meaning of sex in the Equality Act has been a political hot potato for a while now.

The reason that this case went to the Supreme Court was because the highest court in Scotland held that single sex equals legal sex, not biological sex, meaning that a male born person who has a gender recognition certificate is considered female for all purposes including access to single sex spaces and services. (Which means that in practice, any man has access to women's spaces and services since you can't ask someone whether they have a gender recognition certificate.)

Today's judgment confirms that that interpretation was wrong.

What you thought was obvious is in fact the case, but it has taken years of litigation and a decision from the most senior judges in the country to confirm it.

That's cold comfort to anyone unable to use a standard cubicle, if they have to wait while a bloke in a frock is using the accessible toilet.

Right wing transactivists pushing the idea that a male in a dress is a female and a female in slax is a male?

Errrr...... alt-right Nazi transpeople types then 🫢
👍

Fantastic news❤️❤️

And this long, costly battle was necessary because our wooly-minded, supine politicians who now "support" the judgement watched passively as one government body after another was captured by ideological zealots who defined common sense as hate speech.

Do Stonewall do refunds? Thought not...

I don't recall the posts from feminists refuting that male people with transgender identities shouldn't be protected from illegitimate discrimination though. The balance was generally there from feminist posters from the start despite the constant mischaracterisations from some posters.

We always could and as far as I'm concerned, always should.