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).

funny, all the trans identifying women I know are short, like me. 6ft tall women are actually very unusual.

In a sport or workplace if a real woman believes that she is being discriminated against by the action of a person she believes is male and complains to the management or ruling body it is then the responsibility of that organisation to solve the problem.
If the person in question insists they are a female not a male am I right in thinking that the organisation needs the power to investigate?

There is also an element of sex that is “cognitive” .

No there isn't.

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

Some people call it gender identity. I call it a nebulous collection of personality traits and sexist stereotypes. Either way, it's not 'an element of sex'.

I’d be interested to see if there was a legal basis for being able to include women and trans women but not men. How under yhd EA 2010 would you invoke the exception on the basis of sex?

Those who are oh-so-very confused about burly transmen in women’s facilities, or who go further and glory in them as a gotcha - don’t you understand that without this ruling a “cis” man with nefarious intent would have been even more likely to be able to use those women’s facilities with no basis for challenge? That the direction of travel from Stonewall et al was to remove any possibility of enforcing single sex spaces by literally taking away the language and the concepts to identify who was a woman, and who a man?

This ruling is the end of the beginning. The last 15 years or so have led to an unholy mess which will take years to unpick. Had there been greater concern or appetite to listen to women who tried to ask these questions when the unavoidable consequences of telling people that their individual perceptions and desires trumped societal norms or welfare of groups as a class, we wouldn’t now be trying to answer them in real time against a backdrop of so many damaged lives.

But here we are. The SC ruling doesn’t give us the answers to all the hellishly complicated scenarios which have been allowed to develop, but it gives us the language to discuss them. That, for me, is the inestimable prize of what we have won.

We hear a lot about rare genetic disorders as a reason why it's not simple to define a woman. It's never people with one of these disorders who's making the point though, it's always a man who wants access to women's spaces.

Maybe calm down for a second and actually follow the thread before jumping on me.

That's not what I am advocating or suggesting, as you would know if you had followed.
My suggestion up thread was that surely you could have single sex swimming, for women only, AND a session for "self identifying women". I was asked what would be the proportionate reason for excluding (cis) men if trans women were allowed to swim with women for a session. This is my answer.
I also make it clear that the trans women in question would be using the male changing rooms.

Any woman who doesn't want to swim with a trans person in the pool could obviously attend the single sex sessions I included in my suggestion.

Dear old LostCat, I’m sure the TRA will reward you appropriately for your indefatigable shilling on their behalf

i hope it’s worth it

and? The eventual outcome is still binary - you go down EITHER the male or the fenale developmental pathway. There are no speggs.

Sex is about which of the two roles you play, will play, have played or could play in sexual reproduction.

That's it. And that holds true across all sexually reproducing species. Of which humans are one.

The members of some of those species can switch that role from one to the other during their lifetime. Human is not one of those species.

Men claiming to be women are still men, always have been always will be. No identification with feminine cultural stereotypes, surgery or hormones changes a man into a woman. A woman is not a surgically and hormonally altered man. Every sane person knows this.

Age, like sex, is an immutable & therefore protected characteristic. If a 50 year old man claims to be an 11 year old boy does he have the right to insist on being admitted into secondary school? The scouts? The local boys swimming team? A support group for bereaved children? Of course not, it would be unthinkable.

You cannot change your sex or your age. “But gender?” So what? If a man wants to perform his idea of himself as a woman (& many vocal TRAs are AGPs doing just this) then he can crack on. As can cross dressers, gender non conforming men, confused teens & young adults caught up in this social contagion. But they’ve been given a cheque that can’t be cashed, even by Stonewall. They’re men, & nothing will ever change that.

And who thinks science isn’t a thing.

Basically everything has to be available to everyone, unless you can show there's a good reason for it not to be. That's what makes the 'discrimination' lawful and not illegal.

So you can have eg an under 10s football team, and it's lawful to discriminate against the over 10s to allow the under 10s to have their team and fair safe competition. But you can't have a '10 year olds and 14 year olds only' team, because there's no reason of safety or fairness to exclude the 11/12/13 year olds from the team if you're letting 14 year olds in.

So if you let women and transwomen into some things, but not other men, you're discriminating against the other men if you can't show why it's needed to let transwomen men in but not men who know they're men. Which would be a hard sell under the equality act because discrimination has to be legitimate and proportional. I'm looking forward to some men taking it to court.

@FlakyCritic and apparently going to mark their territory with a mass pee.

Why is the rationale trans women fear. Why do THEY get to be fearful, but biological women fear is ignored.

IMO, their male biology gives them more ability to defend themselves physically…

Trans women were always men. Nothing has changed.

That’s great news. I really look forward to reading your posts containing accurate information. Can you put some sort of marker on them so we don’t muddle them up with your other posts ?

Please elaborate. I’m genuinely interested

I'm an employment solicitor. I've read and understood the full judgment.

A few years ago I came on some of the feminist threads to bemoan how anti trans mumsnet was. I was given short thrift.

The more I thought about it, and the more I read mumsnet, I realised my views were wrong and that I was prioritising the rights of Transexual men over women. But more than that, I don't really understand what gender is, separate from sex (if I discount stereotypes).

I know people feel gender dysphoria, but I genuinely can't work out how this operates in practice. The things that make a feel like a woman are being groped, being catcalled, teachers assuming I'm no good at science and math, infertility, endometriosis, pregnancy, breastfeeding, menopause. I don't dress or wear my hair like a stereotypical woman. The things that make me think I'm a woman are directly related to my biology and people's responses to that.

Onto the matter in hand. I read the full judgement and it's very clear. For the purpose of the Equality Act 2010 'woman' and 'she/her' are references to biological women.

Many transexual people (that's the wording in the Act) may refer to themselves as the opposite sex, but my question is what does that actually mean? What it now clearly doesn't mean is that they are women for the purpose of our discrimination legislation.

It's true that in many environments there is no requirement to exclude transexual people. I do think some press is over stating this a bit. For example, in most workplaces where transexuals used the bathroom of their choice, this hasn't suddenly introduced a legal requirement to exclude them. It just means that if the company wanted to enforce single sex (and many won't), it's easier to do so now.

There are some areas where there's a stronger requirement for single sex spaces, such as hospitals and sexual abuse counselling. My view was you could always exclude transexuals under the existing legislation, but this is not how many others, including senior HR at the NHS, interpreted it. It's clear now that in spaces which should be single sex, they now will be.

So in summary:

FACT: The Supreme Court said that Transexual women are not women for the purpose of our discrimination legislation.

FACT: Transexual women cannot claim legal protection under the Equality Act as women. They can claim it as Transexual people and also if they are mistaken for a woman and discriminated against because of this mistake (the mistake does not make them a woman).

FACT: Transexual women can be excluded from female toilets as long as this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Protecting privacy and decency is a legitimate aim. Whether it is proportionate likely depends on the configuration of the toilets and access to alternative facilities. Most existing toilets are unlikely to be configured to allow proper privacy. Many organisations may choose to allow mixed sex toilets, but they don't have to.

My understanding is is that all services and facilities should be open to both sexes unless it is proportionate to exclude the other sex. So the first question would be, on what basis is it proportionate to exclude men from the knitting group? Is it to ensure the protection of (perceived) safety or dignity or privacy of the participants for example.

If you let in some men who identify as women then it undermines the basis on which it is proportionate to exclude men as some men are part of that group.

If John comes along and says he would like to join and is told that he can’t join because he is a man then that would be sex discrimination as the exemption provided for having single sex services has already been set aside by already including biological men who identify as women.

That is my understanding

Gender-stereotyping much.

But, but..... while I agree with your comment, that's not what the radical "invader of women's spaces" stream of TW want is it? They WANT to invade female space and nothing else will be enough for them. That is the root of this I think, since the majority of "ordinary" TW probably just want to live their lives as their chosen gender and get on with it, but the radical TRA element want more.

How does the gender reassignment protection work though? This is a genuine question.

My trans niece used to love swimming. She hasn't swim since she came out as she doesn't use female spaces (strangely enough not all transwomen are TRAs or twats) and wouldn't be at all happy in a male space, or using swimming trunks but would feel like she would be laughed at in a costume (she's not yet on hormones or had any operations, and her parents are in no rush to facilitate this, which I think we would all agree with). So she's self excluding, just like a lot of women have over the years.

So I suppose trans friendly swimming would be ideal for her. It actually needs not be women only but it would need to be a non judgemental space. And it would need to allow non trans people as my niece has a PA who takes her out and about, and other trans people might want to swim with a partner or friend.

Maybe we will see more explicitly trans friendly events that other people can stay away from. I think that's a good thing. I don't want my niece (and neither would she) in any unfriendly or unwelcoming space.

Someone who has a DSD is still either a Man or a woman - each DSD has a very specific sex linked with the disorder

”I really have. Many , many times. The “gender criticals”, on the other hand, are completely unable to provide a precise and coherent explanation of what they mean by “woman”. But whenever you point out that their definitions dont stand up to scrutiny they start telling you you are not allowed to talk about that because it’s “whataboutery” and some people on twitter said we must not speak of it.”

They won’t get what they want anymore.

We should see a shift so women are separate and no longer part of the same groupings including men.