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).

Sex is biological reality, not a subjective feeling.

Gender is the expression of biological sex in society. Being a TGWomen is an expression of male sex in society.

Women have the right to decide who they get undressed in front of and who they play sports against.

Imagine how far the trans community would be, if they had spent the last 10 years in building safe spaces for themselves, pushing for better medications and surgery and trust with the community. Rather than openly bulling and harassing women for saying no to the assumption that they would accept the entitlement of entering single sex spaces without permission or invitiation.

"Among whom EA 2010 recognises as having protected characteristics are women, whose protected characteristic is sex, and "transsexual" people, whose protected characteristic is gender reassignment"

"Interpreting “sex” as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of
“man” and “woman” and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way"

"Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination"

"There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological
interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services
(including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal
accommodation and others"

"The interpretation of the EA 2010 (ie the biological sex reading), which we
conclude is the only correct one, does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with
or without a GRC"

"The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex"

Direct quotes from the judgement.

I am not sure why it quoted your post there sorry!

We all know he is talking about The Equalities Act 2010, which was the subject of the Supreme Court judgment.

I actually don't think @Lostcat has misunderstood the judgment. She has spent the last 48 hours on here having it explained to her by people who have understood it. So I have to assume that she is now deliberately trying to spin it differently for the "benefit" of people who aren't so well informed.

One thing she is correct about is that the judgment does not permit us to discriminate against trans people on grounds of their gender reassignment status. This was always clear. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and that has not changed.

What the judgment absolutely does do is confirm that it is lawful to discriminate against trans women and men on grounds of their sex, when applying the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act to provide a single sex space or service for women. It confirms that the word "sex" in the Equality Act means biological sex, not legal sex, and so when applying the single sex exemptions we can - and indeed must - exclude all members of the opposite sex including those who have obtained a gender recognition certificate.

It confirms that female people do in fact exist as distinct category in law. A category of people which includes all biological women, however we may or may not identify, and excludes all biological men, however they may or may not identify.

This is vitally important because, despite what trans activists might claim about people trying to erase them, they were in fact trying to erase women. They did not want there to be any situations in which society could use a word for female people and not include trans women (i.e. male people who believe they identify as female).

This has had serious repercussions, not just for things like toilets, but for things like rape crisis services, where due to the "trans inclusive" policies of most rape crisis organisations, most British women have had no access to single sex rape crisis support for some time now. This is why JK Rowling has set up and is solely funding a female only rape crisis centre in Scotland, which those oh-so-kind trans activists have tried to have shut down.

Trans activists will also tell you that this judgement was a disgrace because no trans people were consulted. Apart from the fact that the Supreme Court is not supposed to consult random people when deciding on matters of law, this is a wholly dishonest way to spin the fact that the pro trans lobby were represented by the Scottish government with support from Amnesty International, whereas women's interests were represented by a grass roots campaign group consisting of three Scottish women, supported by a small women's rights charity and an even smaller LGB charity (which has also had to fight for its right to exist without the T in court).

It should not have been necessary for a group of women to have to go to the Supreme Court to confirm that female people have the right to exist in law and that we don't always have to include male trans people who believe they identify as women in our women only spaces, but unfortunately it was.

Many thanks to all the brave and tenacious women who made this happen.

Why are you here then?

You'd be better served by engaging because you clearly still don't understand what has just happened and why. Putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to women's very valid concerns is why this court case happened. Stick around, make your case and listen in good faith. You might actually learn something.

So @Lostcat you are just wilfully going to continue to cross women's boundaries? You have no empathy for women at all?

There is no such thing as the ‘Equalities’ Act.

This. OP is being dishonest.

What the judgment absolutely does do is confirm that it is lawful to discriminate against trans women and men on grounds of their sex, when applying the single sex exemptions This is where I get confused. Why is it discrimination to not let a male in the female toilets? To not force females to be in a vulnerable state of undress next to them? Why is not doing exactly what they demand oh so mean and discrimination?

Oh, I didn't realise LostCat had already been on here arguing for a while. So this was basically just a finger wagging at us naughty women rather than actual honest engagement. Same old, then.

^^This. Weren’t they previously called transvestites?

Amnesty International has clearly gone toxic. Instead of trying to save brave people like Ken Saro-Wiwa, it now supports governments who want to put rapists in female prisons. Disgusting.

Transwomen have never been women - ever. They can take all the hormones, use all the make up and buy whatever clothes they want but their DNA, literally, is all male.

Men are very visual and just think appearances are what matters - behaviour, outlook, lived experiences are what make a woman and a man.

Even this demand and expectation to use female single sex spaces as if they have every right to do so is 100% male behaviour, women just don't do this.

And now they’re forced to share those spaces with trans men. Slow clap. 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.

I have always thought the definition of a woman is a biological woman. Other people apply the term more loosely and interpret it in a different way which is up to them but it has been confusing legally.

If something is single sex, it won’t be breaching the law to mean the biological definition. The Supreme Court is not dictating what is/isn’t single sex though. I have seen a lot of threads on here that have misunderstood this.

You are allowed to have single sex groups, schools, sport, changing rooms etc. if you want to apply the biological definition to these then you won’t be breaking the law. If you want to include trans people then that is fine but you can’t be legally forced to do so.

There are trans boys at my daughter’s single sex school. No one has ever thought they should be asked to leave the school. That is because they are biologically girls. If we applied the trans men are men thinking rather than the biological definition, they would have to go, which would seem rather cruel on them. If someone did object to them attending the school, this judgement protects their rights as well.

Yes, post a load of inaccurate bullshit and then fuck off when you can’t actually back up any of it up.
Sounds right.

And regarding the thread title "trans women are still women", the Supreme Court judgment was very clear.

"People can use the words "woman" and "sex" to mean whatever the hell they want them to mean outside this context, that is not our circus and not our monkeys. But when it comes to the interpretation of the Equality Act, these words must have actual meaning. And the meanings are as follows. Sex means biological sex. Women are female people. Trans women, with or without a gender recognition certificate, are male people who we refer to as trans women out of courtesy. But the pretence can not be allowed to go far enough to allow this group to infringe women's sex based rights and protections."

So no, the crux of the judgment is not that trans women are still women.

The judgment makes it clear that trans women are not women, and finally puts some limits on the extent to which we must pretend they are.

The judgement clearly (and rightly), protects the rights of trans people to not be discriminated against. This covers employment, the provision of services and other aspects. It clarifies that the protections accorded to women in terms of safe spaces remain with biological women. So trans people cannot enter the changing rooms of women, toilets and other protected provisions, for example single sex wards, prisons, and refuges. I want to be as tolerant and inclusive to everyone and this seems to me the right judgement, and is very clear.

Yes.... women have no issue with this; because trans men are biological women.

Yes! Which is fine, because they are female.

OP, just because you want something to be true doesn’t mean it is.

the ruling is quite clear that sex is defined by biology and there are two biological sexes. Male and female. And you are the biological sex you are born with. That wearing dresses, growing your hair and getting a certificate can not change this.

Of course trans people shouldn’t be discriminated against, so this means things like you can’t be sacked for being trans, you can’t be passed over for promotion. It does not mean that a male person can go into a female only space.

That legal protection of sex segregated areas for females has been upheld in court. So women’s prisons, rape centres, toilets will be free of men.

It means that male police officers will no longer be allowed to undertake intimate searches on unwilling females (ie sexually assault them) because the officer thinks they feel like a woman.

It means when I have a smear test done it will be a biological women doing that procedure, not a man wearing a dress trying to gaslight me that he’s a woman,

Oh do stop @Lostcat
They are not women.

End of.

Learn to live with it.

Very odd take from Lord Sumption.

The judgment is pretty clear that if you allow trans women into a single sex space for women it is not a single sex space anymore and you are no longer meeting the criteria in the Equality Act which allow you to exclude men.

I wouldn't bet on his interpretation being upheld in the next litigation on this matter.

Well said!

trans women can be women if they want to be. I will always respect a persons chosen pronouns and lifestyle.

i also support if a trans person wants to use a specific bathroom.

that being said, I understand why the SC felt the need to make this judgment.