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).

Transwomen are biologically transwomen.
thats it.

That fails to be correct.

It's up to provider to police it if necessary eg if a TW repeatedly insisted on using female toilets at our local leisure centre, I expect they'd be banned

Is your 'accuracy' in the room with us now?

Here’s the definition of a tiger - a very large solitary cat with a yellow-brown coat striped with black, native to the forests of Asia but becoming increasingly rare.

but a tiger can be albino. It doesn’t mean the definition is not correct.

thats why whataboutery is utter clap trap

Not according to some experts. If you use the definition of a male being someone with an SRY gene plus functional testosterone receptors then CAIS is female.

As I said on another thread I'm not sure if there is consensus on the second condition but that is rhe definition used by Prof Robert Winston

I responded to that one on the last page or so - you may or may not find it helpful!

Your posts are not accurate.

Because excluding men who know they're men is illegal discrimination against those men. The PC isn't 'women', it's sex. And men have a sex.

A group which allows all women and some men, isn't meeting the criteria for either legitimate discrimination on the grounds of sex (because you're letting in some men, so it's not single sex) or gender reassignment (because you're letting in women who don't have the PC of gender reassignment).

Definition of male / female is actually pretty straightforward.

Male - body develops on a pathway to produce small gametes

Female - body develops on a pathway to produce small gametes.

Whoops

Female - body develops on a pathway to produce large gametes.

Cut off is can your body utilise androgens in utero. People with DSD s will be diagnosed by their doctors following medical tests.

This is nothing to do with enforcing single sex spaces or change the fact that transwomen are men.

It’s fascinating to encounter all these strategies to over complicate and obfuscate in what should be a straightforward discussion on a topic that’s relatively clear cut and easy to understand. I wish I was still teaching my Critical Thinking course because there is so much useful material on here.

I believe this particular technique is now known as JAQ-ing off (thanks, AI) - Just Asking Questions.

People with rare medical conditions have asked not to be dragged into gender issues, it's nothing to do with them.

I know that but OP wanted a definition of sex. People with DSDs have nothing to do with gender identity or trans issues.

So my expectation having read the judgement is that where spaces are women only- so women’s toilets, changing rooms, refuges, prisons, personal care in a care setting, single sex hospital wards etc, we are now clear that these are single sex and this means biological women only. There is no option for someone to undertake a risk assessment and say it’s fine, we have risk assessed and we think that trans women can also use the changing room or provide single sex care. Equality act guidance is I think very clear on this.

Yes but if you were organising public policy by distinguishing between two types of animals tigers and not tigers, it would be a serious problem to hang your definition on a yellow coat with stripes, because it would create an arbitrary injustice for albino tigers.

Yes that’s what I mean, they can be women if they want to be in their lives and if they want me to call them women I will. And I’m not really fussed if a trans woman wants to use the “ladies” toilets to be fair.

But in the eyes of the law, the definition is biologically 2 sexes. Which im also fine with.

When is the Trans batshit going to stop???
Biology
Common sense
Supreme court ruling
All ignored/ twisted.

As eloquently posted by eloquent, informed women on many threads, Trans need to channel energies to set up third spaces to fulfil their needs.

Arguing people don't know what sex is, is just plain ridiculous and sophistry. The human race would never have survived if it hadn't known how to distinguish male and female. There may be a very small number of intersex that may have confused in the past, but science has shown that they can be distinguished too. And trans people aren't usually intersex anyway.
It's a pure nonsense argument.

That’s because the ruling doesn’t say that. The EA prevents discrimination “because of” a protected characteristic. The courts have held this is wide enough to include cases where someone is presumed to have a protected characteristic but doesn’t. So if a trans woman applies for a job, uses their chosen female name, is assumed to be a biological female, is rejected because the employer is discriminating against women, then they will have a presumed sexual discrimination claim.

You asked for a definition of a woman. Not public policy.

by definition, a definition should be concise.

you have also been offered multiple definitions that take into accoun CAIS which you have not acknowledged.

Nope. Trans women are trans women (who are biological males).

Women are women.

by definition, a definition should be concise

Not at the expense of meaning, utility and accuracy. Especially if you are going to use it to enforce legal rules about how to organise society.

Provide your definition of woman gender and man gender and stop being such an utter coward.