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).

There isn't going to be any legislation for transpeople, least of all saying transwomen are women..The mood of the country is against it. Forstater, Bailey, and numerous other cases have revealed that the Emperor has no clothes.

A minority of trans activists can't hold the country to ransom. I expect the majority of trans people just want to get on with their lives.

Are women not allowed to enjoy the financial rewards of their hard work?

Transmen are women and of the female sex class.

They may be happy but the point is it can't be advertised as a group for women.

I have a friend who went to a group (not knitting) where there was a trans woman. She said most women felt very uncomfortable as some topics that women like to chat about were 'off limits' and the men who attended slowly faded away, because they felt uncomfortable.

You can make whatever point you want, but don't ignore how people behave in real life.

I got carried away, but I thought would it not be marvellous if the Supreme Court did not stop at this ruling in the fight for common sense and went ahead and ruled that a person can only have 2 parents, a biological man and a biological woman (with the exception of 3-parent mitochondrial technique) to stop confusing poor children and whilst at it, to have some form of a ruling, you know - how they say 'British film classification board - 16 years of age only' - to prevent sex education or as I call them filth lessons at school for anyone aged under 16, to let children stay children until they are 16.

Where is that?

I think groups can be mixed (all welcome), or single sex if proportionate reason eg female only toilets (TW not allowed)

Don't think you'd be allowed to exclude men from a knitting group, as no legitimate reason to do so

A knitting group for women and TW is mixed

Got a lot to read through yet - but the statement “women have to explain what being a woman is”, is one reason I’m so relieved that the Supreme Court has ruled, unequivocally, that sex refers to biological sex and not gender identity. Women don’t have to explain anything. Pre 2010 there was no question that if you’re born XX you’re female and if you’re XY you’re male (putting aside DSD cases). It really suits the agenda of trans activists to obfuscate and put the onus on women to do all the work to justify what is gloriously self evident, that if you’re born female, you grow up to be an adult human female.
How is a trans woman exactly like a woman, with all the very many biological differences that manifest physically and mentally, through nature and through nurture? How does that work, exactly?

The US? :)

Personally I gave zero problem with the transaction community .the only thing I object to is a biological male in a woman's only refuge or prison there us lots of very vulnerable woman there and an open changing room especially if there is female children just no on that end off story and sports cheating .anywhere else I don't care what's between there legs

Eastern Europe 😇

Trans community obviously

Or, in other words, your drafting was crap.
(Solicitor's clerk and legal draftsman here)

I don’t think that’s right.

if transwomen are invited, then the activity is no longer single sex, thereby negating the argument for it being “women’s” sport in the first place. It would not meet the criteria for single-sex exemption and would be considered (under the EA) as discriminatory to men.

Whats your solution? Are you advocating for masculine appearing women to be locked out of their own spaces, but for masculine appearing men to be allowed in, or is there are particular degree of “femme” that you think is comfortable? Very progressive.

Yes, I think this is why JKR has been particularly attacked. See is an intelligent, rich and successful woman. It appears certain men don’t like this. Good on her if her talent, hardwork and business acumen has enabled her to have luxuries such as these.

Oh good! Some whataboutery!

If you’re interested in his past behaviour have a look at the judgement Johnathan Sumption handed down in Jersey in 2011 , immediately prior to his elevation to the peerage . He was instrumental in shutting up the amazingly brave Health Minister Stuart Syvret . The latter lost his career in trying to expose child abuse rings .

And that’s perfectly fine. But good luck to the group when they want to exclude men, because they will have no grounds to.

She pays a huge amount of tax in the UK. More than other billionaires do.

Yes, this. Thank you. All men are and always have been protected against sex discrimination. both as the men they are ("ew, Taylor, we don't give jobs to men!") but also 'as women' if that same man is mistaken for a woman, ("ew, Taylor, we don't give jobs to women!")

I’m trying to find where I have set it out on a previous thread ( as it takes time and careful thought to explain it in a way that makes sense to people), but I can’t find it. So I will try again to give a summary.

First of all- in order to understand “man”/“woman”/“male”/“female”/“trans”, we have to understand what “sex” is. Sex is a complex process of development with multiple components - chromosomes, hormones , gametes, internal and external genitalia. For most people these different elements all align into one of two reproductive types (male/ female). A small number of people have variations in their development , so that they have some characteristics that are typical of the “male” type and some more typical of the “female” type or that combine/ blend elements of both.

There is also an element of sex that is “cognitive” . This is simply a persons recognition , understanding, knowledge of self as “male”/“female”/“man”/“woman”. (this is what people like to call “gender identity”).

Almost all of us have this cognitive element of sex- this cognitive element is simply - “I know/ understand/ recognise that I am a woman/ female”. For the vast majority of people - just as their chromosomes, gametes, hormones, genitals all align- so their cognitive sex aligns with the rest. This is so universal and obvious that most of us take it entirely for granted . Indeed we assume one directly causes the other - eg “I know I am a woman because I was born with a female body”.

However, for a minority of people their cognitive sex does not align with the other aspects of sex (chromosomes , genitals, etc) that we can observe at birth. This is what it means to be trans. We don’t know why this is or what causes this (minority) “misalignment”, but we do know that: 1) it exists and always has , 2) it can manifest from the earliest years of childhood, 3) that it can be highly difficult (typically impossible) to change ; and 4) it is typically deeply harmful to the individual to try to deny or change their cognitive sex. For these , and other reasons , it is likely that this form of diversity (as with other types of sexual diversity) has a durable biological underpinning, although the science on this (as with the science behind the biological origins of same sex attraction and with our understanding of cognition / the brain more broadly) is in its infancy.

(Finally, it’s important to note that this element of “cognitive sex” isn’t a “choice” or an “ideology”- it is more like what we understand in neuroscience to be an “automatic cognition” - one that happens largely without deliberation, consciousness or awareness. It is something that we directly experience, whether we can put a label on it /
make sense of it conceptually or not- (i.e. a cognition akin to something like “hunger”, not akin to something like a belief in a Christian god).

Also, she's clearly on a balcony, not a yacht 😂

Demonstrating my previous claim perfectly.

And what about the women and girls who dont want to be in a state of undress or just a swimming costume with men, which transwomen are, around? The women who had to self exclude from our own changing rooms because men with gender feelings came in without our consent?

Why is all you concern for the transwomen who doesn't want to swim or change with men, when what you're saying they shouldn't have to deal with is precisely what you are trying to inflict on women by the transwoman's presence?

Do you even know women are actual people, and not validation tools for men with special ideas about themselves?