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).

Trans men are biological women.

I think many have a problem with the word assigned as this seems to denote that the doctor had a choice.

likewise I have a problem with being referred to as cis. I am not a cis woman. I’m just a woman.

No, it’s the Equality Act 2010. Singular.

There are trans people worldwide, partucularly in India and Thailand. They dont go into women's spaces. They don't compete in women's sports. They are not considered for women's prizes.
It's not that complicated. Unless you believe that women need to fix male violence. Which is where everything went wrong here.

Transwomen are men. The ruling simply states that transwomen can’t claim discrimination under the act as women, because they are men.

They are, and will always be men.

If you consider what would have happened if the opposite judgement had been made, this might clear this up for you.

If the ruling had been that sex in EA referred to gender identity ie. My sex is what I say it is (regardless of whether surgery/hormones/GRC)-

Biological women spaces and rights cease to exist, because legally, there would be no basis on which to exclude anyone not biologically female.

For example- female only prisons-would have to become mixed sex spaces because if a biological man stated his gender identity was female, he would be entitled to enter that space. Regardless of whether physical changes had been made to transition into a likeness of the female form.

This would be irrespective of their offence. Lets assume this was a violent sex offender, with a long history of sexual violence against women. During the trial, it is clear they will be found guilty and receive a lengthy prison sentence. The offender will be deprived of their liberty and no longer have access to women to sexually assault. The offender then declares they identify as female and would be entitled to placement in a women only prison in order to continue to have access to, and potentially assault, women.

This is the real life implication if the judgement had gone differently.

In reality, policing the toilets is probably not going to happen, but the point is the protection is there and can be enforced.

"Why is it discrimination to not let a male in the female toilets?"

The Equality Act talks a lot about "discrimination" and so that is why the term is used.

Essentially, people should not be discriminated against (treated differently) on the grounds of one of the protected characteristics unless there is an exception given in the Act.

So, for example, the Act specifically allows schools to discriminate on the basis of age (eg you can only start at secondary school when you are over the age of 11).

In the Explanatory Notes to the Act it says:

734 Single sex services are permitted where ... they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa)
.

So, for example, if an employer only allowed biological women to use its female changing area and denied access to a transwoman who then brought a direct discrimination claim the correct comparator would now be a man. The relevant question now becomes has the transwoman been treated less favourably than any other biological man? The answer is clearly, no.
.

Toilets in workplaces and public buildings are covered by this but also by The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which state that there must be separate toilets for men and women (unless there are fully enclosed toilets).

This has enabled some places to go to fully gender neutral toilets (or male toilets and gender neutral). However, the law changed last year and the Building Regs (The Building Regulations 2010) now require that there are both male and female toilets in any new workplace or public building or where other work is being done on a building that requires Building Regs approval.

If men who claim to be women are allowed in women’s spaces because they say they’re women, (gender identity), then all men could argue that it’s discrimination for them not to also be allowed into women’s spaces (sex) - if some men (sex) are allowed, all men have to be allowed in order not to fall foul of discrimination laws.

People with the PC of gender reassignment are still protected against being discriminated against in the provision of goods and services. None of that has changed.

Exactly. My point exactly.

Oh are you assuming that the reason women don't want men in their single-sex spaces is because they look scary? Not true. Transmen absolutely should be able to use women’s facilities. They are women. Very few 'pass' anyway, and yes, those few who do may expect to be challenged.

The ruling simply states that transwomen can’t claim discrimination under the act as women

No, actually it explicitly states they can.

Trans identifying males = men
Trans identifying females = women

Thus it ever was, in biology, in common sense and now confirmed in law.

I don’t even need to look at Terfisaslur to find death threats and wishes of harm towards women. I can find several on Twitter just from the past 2 days.

Nothing says I’m a real woman quite like male rage.

You initially over simplified it massively I am pretty certain people don’t just wake up one day I think I am going to women. Some wil have have had a life long battle with themselves trying to be someone they don’t believe they are.

This

It's done. Deal with it. The trans community need to focus their energy on third spaces and campaign for additional service provision if they want them.

You're not women and you have no business encroaching on our spaces and services to our detriment. Crack on.

I can’t edit my earlier post to add this. I’m going a bit off topic but am talking about the political leanings in Scotland when gender self-id came about.

On the topic of “trans kids”, the vast majority of whom I believe are suffering from social contagion and using “being trans” as a form of rebellion, I think the SNP shamelessly promoted gender self-ID to capture this vote. The SNP will do anything to get votes in Scotland and pushing policy to target the youth vote is their MO. Same with the voting rights at 16.

Before anyone jumps on me about not listening to young people etc - I’m perfectly happy to listen to them but you only have to read the gazillion threads on here about crazy teen behaviour to think that you don’t want them deciding how to run the country!

The debate is toxic, on both sides.

Please don’t try and suggest that TRA’s are the only ones that have been behaving that way - we’ve all been on the internet the last few years.

Can you show where women fighting for our rights have punched, poured liquid over, smoke bombed, spat on, aggressively demonstrated against trans people please?

@Lostcat can I ask you a genuine question? How would you prefer to organise spaces in terms of sex and gender?

For the record, my preference would be to have male and female spaces only for those biological sexes (as in the ruling), but to make a concerted effort to add gender neutral spaces wherever possible - as well as being helpful to trans people, these spaces would also be helpful to people with caring responsibilities for people of the opposite sex (e.g. dads with young daughters and mums with young sons).

How would you organise things? Would you have men's and women's spaces but anyone can enter based on their identity? If so, how would you stop sex offenders and creepy males going in the women's space?

Or did you have another solution in mind?

Transwomen are men. Male. They are not women and never ever will be. The fact that the British Transit Police said they will have males strip search transwomen proves they know the game has changed.

Further, I think it's interesting to get on record, as posted elsewhere; The idea trans rights have been set back, because women’s rights have been affirmed, reveals precisely what was meant by trans rights in the first place.

Which was entirely about violating female spaces, never about trans 'rights'.

This is my proudly gender-critical view. "Transwomen" are men who identify as women. They are not really women. Not in any real or meaningful way. Biology is a fact. The law is now clearer on this, and people can be more honest and place truth over the feelings of a small but insignificant number of men who were never really women in the first place but would threaten violence or cancellation if faced with reality.

Your certainty is misplaced. Stonewall decided that any man who self identifies as a woman was one. Even if that “enlightenment” arrived just seconds before entering a women’s changing room or toilet.

It’s also terribly convenient how many criminals have this enlightenment just before sentencing in order to go to a women’s prison and have an easier time of it and also often access to actual women.

This makes sense!

single sex prison and in competitions it should be just those who were born female. I am sure they are plenty more situations some example

on a more local level I just don’t understand how a trans women using the female toilets makes a difference they just have cubicles in any way.

It’s also very convenient how many mediocre male athletes suddenly start winning trophies and medals when they decide that they are now transwomen and move into women’s sports at the expense of athletes who are actually women.

Why are men afraid of using men's toilets?

There's the answer!

If you refuse to accept trans women into female spaces and into male spaces where they aren’t safe then you have to accept trans men into yours to not be hypocrites

No problem with that, because they're women.