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).

I think she’s also not a billionaire because she’s given so much money to charity.

They've been happy forcing women to self exclude. This is just our argument against their inclusion repurposed.

They may not want to be in facilities with other men but they are men not women.

They've had years worth of opportunity and big funding to fight for their own spaces away from other men but not impinging on women but curiously they've never been interested in doing that.

Can't you find something else to do today?

This is sooooooooo boring.

Demonstrating what claim exactly?

Again, define woman gender and man gender, I assume it's faultless seeing as you see biology as imperfect and therefore not a good enough system.

Of course trans women often set off that same trigger. It's one of the reasons feminists have said they shouldn't be in female spaces. What doesn't make sense is the lack of acknowledgement that some transmen if forced back into women's spaces will have the same result.

Yep I need to do that now.

That was for the pp who asked for an explanation and said she was genuinely and sincerely interested. @Nevermindthebuzzard

lets Start with a definition of a definition…. definition does not necessarily need to cover all possible instances or examples of a term or concept. Definitions can be tailored to a specific context or purpose, and may be incomplete or approximate. A useful definition, however, should be clear, concise, and applicable to the most common or relevant uses of the term.

so my definition doesn’t need to stand up to your whataboutery!

'Cognitive sex' what nonsense. If that was a thing, does it mean that humans with severe brain damage or intellectual impairments don't have a sex?

Sex is biology. That's all it is. Wear what you want, think what you want, sex is bodies and that's all.

When will disordered men get that women dont have any mystical lady feelz? There is no such thing as cognitive sex. I am a woman because I was created and born as a female. Therefore I grew up as a woman with some uniquely female experiences due to my female biology. That's it. Any cognition I have about my female sex is becasue my cognition developed in my biologically female brain.

I'm very surprised by all the chat about 6 foot transmen in recent days.

My experience of transmen has been that they've been average/low average female height. Which I'm not surprised by, thinking of the factors that lead women and girls to transition.

Head size and hand size also tend to be pretty reliable indicators of sex. Particularly head size. I'm aware that serious medical conditions such as acromegaly can affect these, but this is a rare condition with distinctive features.

Except it's not the same result, because whilst it may trigger a trauma response, they will still be far safer around other women than they were around men, and they will know this.

I’m pretty sure the judge included ‘sex is binary’ in their statement.

Women no longer includes men however they present.

It’s clear now. Thankfully and finally.

I'm not advocating for anything or proposing a solution. I am demonstrating that there is potentially still a problem.

Of course they have the other aspects of sex- chromosomes , genitals, etc. Again “sex” is a complex developmental process with multiple components.

That may be a legitimate reason to hold a transwoman only swim sessions. But I don’t think it holds water for excluding men who aren’t transwomen from this one. Because you don’t just need ‘any reason you can write down/think of’, you need a reason that is specifically allowed.

What will clear this up is the guidance from the EHRC, because the legislation isn’t a particularly easy read.

Ypu are allowed to discriminate by sex in certain areas, but this isn’t discriminating by sex because both males and females would be allowed in. The group of men who aren’t transwomen would be discriminated against.

I am also clear that providing a ‘women and transwoman service’ if allowed, would only be allowed if there were also women only services, because otherwise it would discriminate against females with particular religious beliefs.

So I suppose service providers could try such sessions, specifically labelled, and then see a) if many women turned up (because they wouldn’t really be economical to run if they didn’t) and b) if anyone tried to sue them. I don’t fancy the service providers will be falling over themselves to do it, frankly.

Absolute shameless hypocrisy from team "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman".

The fact that you don't like the definition "adult female human" doesn't mean it is not a precise and coherent explanation of what a woman is.

'Sex is a complex developmental process'.
Heard it all now.

Pippa bunce has always annoyed me. He can’t even be arsed to pretend to be a woman 100% of the time and still got a woman’s award!

Word salad. You are either male or female. Some people wish they were the opposite sex, but your sex is immutable.

Dress how you want, call yourself by whatever name you want, but you will never change your sex.

And no one has to pander to someone else's belief that they are the opposite sex. And they don't have to accommodate men who wish they were women as actual women. Why? Because they are, and will always be, men.

The Supreme Court has stated sex is binary.

I've provided you with a definition of sex which also covers those people who have DSDs. Why do you believe that definition is incorrect?

Organisations are going to have to quickly review their policies. For example the Freemasons https://www.ugle.org.uk/gender-reassignment-policy

As this policy is currently drafted they seem to be allowing some biological women in (those who hold a GRC) but excluding other women. Therefore surely this is actually already a mixed sex group and therefore they have proved it’s not proportionate to exclude women. If they refused my membership on the grounds I am a woman this is sex discrimination governed by the Equalities Act.

As the case clarified the existing law I’m not sure there is any defence for not immediately complying with the clarification.

Starmer needs to be out there, today setting out the very basic message.

Is this really the case? How can it be sex discrimination against men as a whole if you are allowing in transwomen, who are of male sex?

I've read a lot of stuff since the ruling and I'm still not entirely clear as to whether this is now just an issue of mismatches between how you label your facilities/club/group and who you allow in. So, for example, would it be fine to allow transwoman Mabel into your knitting group if you called it a 'Women's and transwomen's knitting group'?

So we have a bit of an impasse, don’t we? No solution is perfect for everyone. Do you think actual males should access women’s spaces?