Trans women are still women

[Lostcat]

AIBU to share what the Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of women in the Equalities Act does and does not do/say/mean.

Although there are now moves to take the ruling and embed discrimination against trans women into uk law, this was not the intention of the Supreme Court judgement. In fact, the judges made it very explicit that politicians, media and activists shouldn’t seek to weaponise the judgement for political gain. Unfortunately that is exactly what people (including a whole host of mumsnetters) are doing.

So what does the judgement do?

Myth: the UK Supreme Court says trans women are not women

Myth: the ruling means trans women can’t claim legal protection as women

Myth: the ruling says you can ban trans women from women’s loos or other women only spaces

What the ruling actually says:
“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning 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 [Equality Act] 2010.”

The ruling says that in sex-based provisions under the Equalities Act 2010, sex means “biological sex” and refers to one of two biological sexes.

The ruling reiterates that trans women are protected from sex discrimination as women - because they experience the same sexism as women do.

The ruling affirms also that trans people are protected under the law from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.

As before (and as the law has stated since 2004) trans women, with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate, should be treated as women and given access to the relevant women’s services - as before, an exception may be made under limited circumstances where the need to exclude trans women may be proportionate (the law gives women’s refuges as an example of a space where this may be necessary, sometimes).

The ruling merely states that in legal references to “sex” the words “man” and “woman” in the sex discrimination clauses of the equalities act refer to “biological” women and men - it is merely about the use of language in legal cases of discrimination.

The very real impact of this on trans and non-binary people’s lives comes from misinterpretations of what is meant or intended by the ruling.
The trans community is fearful because of the inevitable spin manufactured by biased news media and the powerful gender critical lobby (including wealthy and high profile people such as JK Rowling who claim they are “silenced” by trans advocates).

Problem is, they aren’t women. However much they say something, it doesn’t make it true.

Before the transactivists got involved in all this, nearly all women were perfectly happy for the occasional trans woman to use the women’s facilities. But now, they pushed and pushed, we had to push back and those perfectly pleasant people just living their life are going to be affected by this.

It’s a shame, but at some point this always had to come to a head because there was always a conflict of the rights of those who want safe women only spaces and those who don’t.

Trans women can only claim perceptive sex direct discrimination on the grounds that someone might perceive them to be a woman.
They can claim direct discrimination because of gender reassignment.
The ruling makes this clear that this has always been the case.
There are no moves to embed discrimination of trans women into law.
You have completely misunderstood what the judgment has, very clearly, said.

I know. I just wanted to post this for the record. For some (probably unwise) reason I see it as a duty to share accurate information about trans issues here as elsewhere.

I should probably mute this thread now!

Fact: The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.' MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence.

Biological women will always have more to fear than the myth of 'trans community'

From the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant

The former supreme court justice, Lord Sumption, questioned the way Wednesday’s judgment had been interpreted.

Sumption said: “I think it’s quite important to note that you are allowed to exclude trans women from these [single-sex] facilities. But you are not obliged to do it.

“So, for example, the authorities of a sport such as women’s boxing, women’s football, are allowed to limit it to biological women. They were not in breach of the discrimination rules of the Equalities Act.

“But the judgment does not mean that the sporting authorities have got to limit women’s boxing or women’s football to biological women.”

Thank you

Have you read the judgment?

Yes it was definitely the trans women pushing this agenda wasn't it 🙄

The fact a biological male can have a little certificate and then take a space in a women's only refuge is abhorrent.

The ruling at least goes someway to re-establish sense in this craziness.

The trans community need to fight for their own spaces where they will feel safe and represented, rather than pushing women of faith, female victims of male abuse and others out of the safe spaces that are rightfully theirs. Trans allies bullying women into giving up their spaces was never going to work in the long term.

Would you like to share your legal qualifications with us all, @Lostcat?

“Myth: the UK Supreme Court says trans women are not women“

I thought it was simply that woman in EA refers to biological woman. And man refers to biological man.

So, in the EA a trans woman is a man.

correct me if I’m wrong

The ruling reiterates that trans women are protected from sex discrimination as women - because they experience the same sexism as women do.

They don't though. If accurate information is important to you, you might want to reword this bit. For example, a transwoman will never experience the same discrimination as i did when i was sexually harassed because i was pregnant, and when i returned from work on maternity leave, my career stalled and i was managed out because i was now a mother.

Trans people do suffer discrimination, but it's not the same sexism as women suffer. Women suffer discrimination because of gender stereotypes that transwomen seek to perpetuate. The idea that you literally become a woman if you wear a dress/make up/use a feminine name. Dresses, make up and feminine names aren't what makes someone a woman. Being female is.

I always wonder what goes through someone's head when they insist that a transwoman is the exact same thing as a woman. I'm autistic, so maybe that's why i don't get it. Maybe op can explain it to me. I'm assuming it boils down to "be kind".

It doesn't make sense to me to insist that a human can actually change sex because they simply can't. I think all humans should be able to wear/call themselves whatever they want but it doesn't make them the opposite sex. Let's get rid of all gender stereotypes and then nobody needs to transition to anything - they can just be happy being themselves. If saying that makes me a Terf, then i don't understand that either. It's just logic.

correct.

Transwomen (no space) are, and always have been, men @Lostcat. Try empathising with Rape survivors, female prisoners, women fleeing domestic abuse, female athletes, women who just want female spaces.

The reign of terror is over. The insistence that it was not just wrong but illegal for women to have any spaces of their own has been blown to bits. The headbanging Scottish Government’s determination to shoehorn men with a GRC into the category of women in all cases has exploded in their stupid faces. By saying it’s entirely legal to exclude men with a GRC from women’s single sex organisations, the SC has now proven it is legal to exclude all men. Men can no longer demand to perform smears or strip searches on women, give intimate care, attend lesbian meet ups or breastfeeding groups, whatever Stonewall said. TRAs can and surely will continue to try to pressure and threaten venues which permit women-only groups to meet on their premises by telling them that excluding men who want to be women is against the Equality Act, but those venues can now confidently tell them to fuck off.

Umm...yes?

Just to point out that Lord Sumption didn't even get the name of the law correct - there's no such thing as the "Equalities Act". A man making such a basic error can be safely assumed to have missed out numerous other facts and details. 🙄

YANAL HTH

The ex civil servant in your linked article is wrong though because Harriet Harman, who wrote the equalities act, said the judgment was correct in her meaning of the words sex and woman when she drafted the legislation.

I rate Lord Sumption and he is correct up to a point. In traditional English fashion the determining factor is reasonableness. Is it reasonable to allow trans women into a female only competition / support group / changing space, given that the term woman is biological in meaning when considering issues of equality? Thus, it probably isn’t for boxing, but is for chess. The need to consider this at all marks sn important shift away from the recent trend to automatically impose trans women on women, without consideration of reasonableness under the equalities act.