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).

No I don’t agree that any of these statements are coherent

JK Rowling has literally set up and is solely funding the only women's rape crisis service in Scotland.

A male is 50% of the population, not a minority. A male, whether in a suit or in a dress, is the oppressor sex class, and never a minority. Prejudice against females still exist, and this law states we have a right to our own definition as the oppressed sex class, and a right to exclude all male people from spaces designed to give us safety, privacy and dignity. @BeCalmNavyDreamer

It's not because you are autistic that you don't understand it. It's a ridiculous argument, transwomen are not women. The reasons people say it are:
They benefit from the lie.
They have been indoctrinated into thinking it's kindness, which means they have no critical thinking skills because destroying the rights of 51% of the population is not kind.
They are actually delusional and believe it, I believe this group is very small

Not about loos
JK Rowling has already spent her money establishing a womens refuge for victims of domestic violence, among many other causes.

A bit more context - the Scottish Parliament in 2022 passed a bill (blocked from becoming law by the UK government due to the potential impact on the EA) which would have made it easier to get a GRC. It reduced the application time period, removed the need for a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and lowered the age limit. It was particularly criticised at the time for not defining what "living in the acquired gender" actually meant, given the removal of the need for a diagnosis.

If the bill had become law, and EA-defined sex meant GRC-acquired sex as well as biological sex, then EA single sex exemptions would become meaningless.

I think partly the reason that some people think the you'll have to accept transmen in your space is a gotcha is due to the TRAs insistence that what women say is a dogwhistle.

When women say transwomen are men they mean exactly that but TRAs have been very insistent that this is a dog whistle and women really mean that they want to exclude trans people. This means that they can't comprehend that women who believe that transwomen are men do also believe that transmen are women and belong in female spaces

This. Also, what about trans men? Are they discriminated against the same way women are?

That is a desperately nonsensical argument. This makes it LESS likely that males will enter as we can call the police, and shame them.

Newsflash, we know a male from a female. You're attempt at an argument is quite embarrassing.

Wow you really came on just to demonstrate how little you know about this subject, didn't you?

A lot of transwomen are straight men.

Transpeople haven't been banned from loos.

Transwomen are overrepresented amongst imprisoned sex offenders.

JK Rowling literally fully funds a women's shelter because the public one was 'inclusive' to abusive males.

Just embarrassing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beira%27s_Place#:~:text=Beira's%20Place%20(%2Fˈba%C9%AA,provide%20services%20to%20transgender%20women.

You mean like the rape centre J K Rowling has founded and funds? Where trans women are not allowed but where women can absolutely get the support they need? Like that?

I don't want men in loos no, especially around my dds. However the loo is the most common and biggest symbol of encroachment isn't it.

No I don’t agree that any of these statements are coherent

You're astonishingly determines to ignore reality, in which case.

Yes, just imagine.
Women would have been their allies. Instead, they tried to bully us.

They lack precision and therefore become incoherent under detailed scrutiny.

Your point appears simultaneously to be “nothing has changed” and “this represents a catastrophic roll back of the rights of trans people”.

Which is it?

So, you have skin in the game then 😏

This is correct. However, there is only a very limited set of circumstances where this could happen.

If a transwoman was perceived to be an actual woman and was treated less favourably because of that then they could bring a claim for discrimination because of sex.

But, really, just how many transwomen actually fool others into believing that they are real women?

This is para 251 of the judgment where an example of how this would work is given:

251 Take, for example, a trans woman who applies for a job as a sales representative and the sales manager thinks that she is a biological woman because of her appearance and does not offer her the job even though she performed best at interview and gives the job instead to a biological man. She would have a claim for direct discrimination because of her perceived sex and her comparator would be someone who is not perceived to be a woman. The fact that she is not a biological woman should make no difference to her claim, which would be treated in the same way as a direct discrimination claim made by a biological woman based on the sex of the complainant herself.

This specific question was addressed in the SC judgment.

Nobody is condoning violence, or threats of violence.

But imagine starting an argument, spending years covering all areas of the internet with that debate, organising rallies and then being like “errrr why are they arguing back?”

As I said, I absolutely don’t condone threats of any kind, but you can’t spend all of this time vilifying a whole community and expect silence in return.

Nothing.
But they can be more confidently challenged. It’s the situation we were in before.
A man can go in but say he feels like a woman and people weren’t confident to challenge it. People lost jobs when they tried.
Now, we’re in the same situation but he will have to say he’s a trans man instead of saying he feels like a woman and you can be more confident in making your challenge.

This categorically will not happen, you'll be pleased to hear.

And yet, they reflect material reality.

You're right. Women have only gained equality with men in the last 150 years or so. Now we have people trying to take that away from us !!!

I am inclined to feel that if a woman has chosen to go through a series of invasive procedures the final result of which is she is intimidating to other women, then that's her problem.