What difference does it make

[Fullofquestions1]

I have read bits about the ruling to do with women. What difference does it actually make? If as a man you identify and looks like a woman (stereotypical women) and go in a female space who is actually going to know ?
the bottom line is even if someone has gender reassignment surgery the chromosomes you were born with won’t change how ever you chose to live and identify as.
i don’t understand what difference this ruling makes. I am not against trans or how ever someone choses to live but I just can’t understand why there is a fuss over this ruling.

Nobody seems to have mentioned how it should be policed.

Trans men now have there sex based maternity rights enshrined in law

Well, for a start, before the ruling we had e.g. gyms allowing people who were obviously biologically male people into women's communal changing rooms, and I hope that this will cease now.

Lesbians can now form groups which exclude men without being taken to court for discrimination.

Women can ask for a female health care provider and be confident they won't be greeted by a man who says he's a woman.

Men can now be excluded from womens rape survivor groups and women's domestic violence shelters. They can still access services but it will not be unlawful to exclude them from women only services.

A male police officer who says he is a woman will no longer be able to perform intimate body searches on women in custody.

Men will no longer be sent to women's prisons.

These are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head.

@FOJN thank you that makes it make sense

A male police officer who says he is a woman will no longer be able to perform intimate body searches on women in custody.

Those who are deemed to pass and have had the full surgery might still be able to do this. The court was willing to read down PACE to refer to acquired gender rather than sex in A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. We probably need some further case law to confirm but arguably this isn't an area covered by the Equality Act and if so wouldn't be affected by the ruling.

It was clarifying what the Equality Act 2010 actually intended.

The Act used the terms "men' and "women" when it was written, with sex as a protected characteristic. People have since been trying to claim that "men" means people of either sex, and so does "woman".

This was always going to be unworkable as no criteria whatsoever was offered to differentiate these two groups of people (other than the circular "feels like a woman/man"... which would still just mean feeling like a person of either sex. )

You can't have a law about groups where no-one can tell which group anyone is in.

So the people trying to confuse things and render "men"/"woman" without meaning in law have been told a meaning is needed, and that is biological sex.

All things that have already happened and did impact large numbers of women.

Pretty sure it was a thread on here some time ago...

A woman complained about a man being in the woman's changing rooms at their local swimming pool and the staff said it was fine as the man identified as a woman and let him continue .... granted he was in a woman's bathing costume but also had a full beard and bulge...

So I'm assuming this man will have to return to using the male changing rooms in future.

I suspect, and rightly so he can still continue wear a bathing suit If he so wishes.

And men filming in changing rooms. Using women to validate them because they were in the womens changing rooms. Like extras in their movie. Saw loads of them on twitter.

Yes you are right but this ruling does provide the reasoning to challenge policies which have deprived women of the right to be searched by someone of the same sex.

Yes, and my understanding is that the police and British Transport Police were going beyond this and allowing anyone with a GRC to do these searches, regardless of whether they had any surgery or passed.

I have no idea how they would decide who passes well enough. It's a terrible decision in so many ways.