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).

Nope, never will be.

An adult human female is NOT an adult human male.

There you go

So trans women can be included in women's sport if this is deemed safe and unproblematic for all involved. Where there are concerns about this and where it deemed unsafe of inappropriate, trans women can be excluded from women's sport. So, for example, a trans woman may be welcomed to join a women's Saturday morning community badminton club but can be barred from joining an women's elite rugby team for safety and fairness reasons.

OP, read the fucking room.

Yes. Like the man who was a transwoman who attacked me with his/their/her fully intact male body. I guess this pp would just have be believe I was attacked by…a woman? And that I should not worry about it

Oh and I love this photo! Apparently my photo is under review but it’s JK Rowling smoking a cigar and drinking champagne on her yacht ❤️

They are protected from sex discrimination as men. The judgment was clear that sex is about being male or female. The one prerequisite to be a “trans woman” is to be a male.

What some pp appear to be confused about is that for all protected characteristics, if you are discriminated against based on a mistaken understanding by someone that you have it, you are protected in the same way. So for eg someone thinks a man called Lindsay is a woman and doesn’t give him a job because of it, they have discriminated against him based on their PERCEPTION of him as a woman, although it was mistaken.

Well it is obviously needed in a country where the prime minster thinks that some women can have a penis

I am a 16 year old, size 8, blonde cheer leader!

mirror check . . .

😭

That they aren't invited?

I daresay if a guy really wanted to join he could say that according to the Equality Act a group that is single sex cannot include trans women etc. But this group doesn't claim to be single sex. It says it is for women and trans women. Can people not invite who they like to a group they want any more after this ruling?

What about a group advertised for left handed people. That's not a protected group, would you object to that? Or a group for people who attended St John's school in the 1980s. Are they discriminating against people by having that group?

I thought the point was that trans women joining groups for women only was making some women uncomfortable for a variety of very valid reasons. If you think this means that trans women and natal women cannot ever be in a completely transparent and agreed group together without "cis" (for clarity of the group I am talking about) men as well, then I think that's nonsensical.

Women only - women and trans women - mixed - men and trans men - men only are surely all valid groupings, as long as everyone in that group is happy with who is invited and understands up front I do not see an issue.

Bravo!

Yes we do, there are at least 10 tells, it is hardwired into females for our survival to tell a male from a female.

This is one former judge’s legal opinion. Other legal opinions are available. He wasn’t involved, he’s just giving his take.

You mean men with CAIS

If you are saying that women cannot even choose to share a group with trans women they know and love them on a transparent and agreed basis, then you are advocating for apartheid, surely?

In real life, away from theoretical debates on the internet, I doubt there'd be a rush to join a knitting group advertised as for 'women and trans women'.

If the majority of women are happy to have Mabel in their group, that's fine.

But you can't advertise it as a knitting group for women, and have a trans woman join. I think it would break advertising standards for a start.

As for Mabel living in a village and unable to find enough other trans women or indeed men to start a knitting group- well, tough, we can't all have what we want in life.

I was in a violent relationship for years. It took a few attempts to leave and his behaviour at those times was completely unhinged. I am lucky to be alive. He absolutely would have attempted to access women only spaces, the idea he could self ID and people would have stood back for fear of being called transphobic is horrifying. I definitely wouldn't have felt safe around pre-op transwomen at that time either.

Well indeed. But it's hardly exclusive to the UK, this American bullshit has been push all around the globe. I've never seen another movement have so much success in such a short time, but that's men's 'rights' for you.

She was apparently channelling Hannibal from The A Team. It’s a great photo 🤣

Neither did we. Most people already knew. Please don’t assume we all needed legal input into what biology is.

Yes they can. But if you allow transwomen (i.e. men with or without a GRC) to join, you will now also have to allow all other men to join if they want to.

This is because your legal reason for lawful discrimination against men as a sex has fallen away. Legally, you have already allowed some men in so you have no justification for allowing all of them. Telling any men they cannot join in those circumstances because they are men will be unlawful sex discrimination.

There is no useful purpose to a women and transwomen knitting group

This would be discriminating against men who like to knit.

In real life, most knitting groups are inclusive in that anyone can join.

Bog off with your toilets crap.

Reducing this to toilets is minimising and trivialising in an attempt to silence women's legitimate concerns.

It is not about toilets.

It is about whether your vulnerable elderly mother should be on a hospital ward in a surgical gown next to an intact male who identifies as a Lesbian.

It is about whether convicted male rapists should be allowed access to vulnerable women by "transitioning" so they can be sent to a women's prison.

It is about whether your young daughter on a residential trip should have supervision from a same sex adult.

It is about whether when your teenage daughter on guide camp should be sharing a tent with a teenage boy with a working penis just because he identifies as a girl.

It is about whether a woman facing a strip search should be entitled to request that this is done by a woman and get a person who was born a woman.

It is about whether when you get your smear test and ask for a female nurse (or a female chaperone to the male nurse) you get one or get a man who claims to be a woman.

A real woman of the people. On her yacht. 😂

I have noticed that the stonewall faction are now trying a tactic of confusion and misinformation on line, presumably to try and bully and confuse businesses and organisations into keeping women’s services and spaces open to men.

The government need to move quickly on this to ensure organisations have the right information- they can flesh out the detail on this later.

The simple message is, if you provide single sex spaces or services because it is proportionate to do so under the Equalities Act this excludes trans people of the opposite sex (eg transwomen are excluded from entering female only changing rooms).

If Transpeople aren’t excluded this becomes a mixed sex space/service and all men would therefore have access as it is clearly no longer proportionate to exclude men from these spaces/services.

I’ve seen comments that it must be a proportionate response to exclude say transwomen from women’s spaces. Actually the point is, it must be proportionate to exclude men from these spaces.

At the same time trans people cannot be discriminated against for their status of being trans (currently where they fall into the category of having a GRC or are preparing for or undergoing gender reassignment - but I suspect this might be extended to self ID). Therefore, I think we will see a rise in trans specific services/facilities to ensure that they have access where it is proportionate to do so. Eg if it is felt transwomen might feel at risk in a men’s toilet it might be correct to offer a trans/gender neutral toilet.

@SameyMcNameChange
"what would the aim be that would justify the exclusion of men who weren’t transwomen?"

Transwomen being much more likely to have body issues, breast growth etc that makes them not want to be in a state of undress or just a swimming costume with men around? That would cause them to self exclude if forced to be in male changing rooms while men were there?