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).

As this thread too has devolved from any pretence at clever-clever faux-legalese pretend-interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling into the good old trope of

ˢᵉˣ ᶦˢ ˢᴼ ᶜᵒᵐᵖˡᶦᶜᵃᵗᵉᵈ ᶦᵗ ᶜᵃⁿ'ᵗ ᵇᵉ ᵈᵉᶠᶦⁿᵉᵈ ʷᶦᵗʰᵒᵘᵗ ᵃ ᶻᶦˡˡᶦᵒⁿ ˢᵖᵉᶜᶦᵃˡᶦˢᵉᵈ ᵗᵉˢᵗˢ

If we actually fell for this nonsensical proposition, the logical conclusions might be:

• We couldn't define sexed spaces at all so there wouldn't be any sexed spaces for the special people-of-gender to demand access to

or

• Special people-of-gender demanding access to sexed spaces would have to be subjected to said zillion specialised tests, and shall we take bets on what %age of them have any of the much-trumpeted edge-case rare conditions?

Either way, there can't be a logical conclusion of

Bᵤₜ wₒₘaₙ/ₘaₙ GENDER ᵢₛ SOLID, ₘₘ-ₖay, aₙd ₑₙₜᵢₜₗₑₛ accₑₛₛ ₜₒ ₛₑₓₑd ₛₚacₑₛ

from the claim of human sex being ineffable.

I feel (and hope) that the "trendiness" for many of being trans will dissipate, now that the ability to do whatever they want in relation to single sex spaces and many other things aswell is no longer a thing. Sure, the radical TRAs will fight, but that's not about trans it's about mysoginy I think.

To be trans will not be "cool" for much longer I feel, since it was a movement, a fad, a community to be part of. That can still be, but for what? They still have their rights preserved under the EA, no different to a month ago, but there's not much left to fight for under the law.

Oh, are we now going off on an irrelevant tangent about DSDs because this thread isn't going the way you'd hoped?

The Supreme Court has just ruled on a case including a definition.

Whatever people who feel it should have gone differently say on chat forums say their conclusions stand.

The way I “hoped”?

I assure you I am not new to mumsnet- I knew exactly how it would go.

Again- if you want to assert a definition of “sex” and use it to enforce public policy you have to accept your definition will be subject to scrutiny and discussion. The problem is your definition of sex is an ideological simplism and creates arbitrary injustices.

So what's your definition of sex?

I already provided it - read the thread if you are actually interested

The trouble with sociological definitions of gender are that they are based on relationships and agreement of society as to their meanings. Self ID fails as others will ascribe something different to you. The same argument is for pronouns as they are ascribed to you by someone else and not yourself. If enough people say trans women are women, then that would be fine but that isn’t the case and no amount of bullying can change people’s minds.

The science of sex is very clear and the majority of people who identify as trans have body dysmorphia and not an underlying medical condition such as Kleinfelters or CAIS and using this as an argument is disingenuous.

From the judgement:

208. It is unprincipled to answer this problem by saying, as the Scottish Ministers do, that associations can restrict membership to less than 25 members so that they are not an “association” for the purposes of Part 7. It is also impractical. The Scottish Ministers also suggested in writing that the fact that the members of the association may not be attracted to a particular woman (a trans woman with a GRC who is therefore legally female) or wish to associate with her, does not diminish the protections which they are entitled to in terms of their own protected characteristic of sexual orientation. Even if this is true (which is doubtful) it does not begin to address the chilling effect a certificated sex interpretation appears to have on the ability of lesbians to associate in lesbian-only spaces. The idea that to do so they should seek instead to restrict membership on the basis of “some shared philosophical belief regarding the immutability of sex” (as Ms Crawford KC suggested in argument) demonstrates the incoherence of the Scottish Ministers’ position.

It's far too multifactorially complicated for any mortal mind to comprehend, and yet simultaneously is very easy for people-of-gender to self-define into.

Do keep up.

It’s fascinating that so many trans ‘allies’ on this thread (and even the purpose of this thread) have zero interest in the fact that the ruling actually benefits ‘transmen’ with a GRC and gives them full protection in maternity and abortion law that they wouldn’t have had if it went the other way.

You call yourselves trans allies but you are not. You are men allies.

Interestingly, in the area of law where this ruling SHOULD have meant a gain for ‘transwomen’ - inheritance and primogeniture, nothing has changed at all. Guess why? Because the men who call themselves women involved in the drafting of the GRC already sorted themselves out at the expense of a gain for ‘transmen’. They had it written so that the GRC changes sex for ‘all purposes’ EXCEPT for inheritance. So a man with a GRC to say he is female will still inherit land and titles as if he was a man and a woman with a GRC saying she is male won’t. We’ve seen it happen in real life. And as an aside, consider which class of men will have had inheritance and titles as their top concern? These are privileged and wealthy men, not the poor little oppressed beings that you seem to imagine.

That’s how much of a male supremacist movement you are all supporting.

A TRA talking point since the decision was made is that although the supreme court defined woman as biological woman in the Equality Act they didn't define biological sex

That leads to the co opting of people with DSDs to show sex is very complicated or in the case of Dr Upton at NHS Fife the assertion that transwomen are not robots and are made of biological material and are women so are biological women.

Luckily, we don’t do anything analogous to that when we make a distinction between male and female, men and women.

The op can post complicated definitions on here but they’re diverging from where we’re going with this now.

The Supreme Court judgment and ECHR applications will differ from what the pp is after.

Sorry I must have missed that can you post it again

If you knew that your thread claiming to set the record straight about the Supreme Court judgment would be immediately and comprehensively dismantled by people who know better, why did you start it?

Seems an odd way to spend your Saturday morning.

What is this absolute fuckwittery about how ‘complicated’ sex is?! It’s not! you can’t be this stupid, OP, so I can only think that you’re purposely trying to persuade people that’s it’s oh-so-difficult 🙄

XX is not the “definition” of “female.” XX is a sex chromosome complement in female mammals involved in sex determination, not the definition of what a female is.

The definition of what a female is:

The adult phenotype who produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.

And before you start wibbling on about infertile women, note the word phenotype above.

I think OP is partially right, this ruling simply defines ‘woman’ ‘man’ and ‘sex’ as used in the EA. I also generally rate Lord Sumption, I think his reading is broadly correct.

What this misses though, is just how important this is for women.

Firstly it highlights that there is a route to provide genuinely single-sex facilities. That’s an important pushback against ‘Stonewall law’, which many organisations seemed to believe they must follow - and the publicity really helps. Given the legal requirements for single-sex provision in schools, it will help a lot here.

Secondly, I think it means that where an organisation needs to provide single-sex facilities in order to comply with the EA, these must genuinely be single-sex.

Thirdly, where organisations are labelling facilities as single-sex, I think there may be an EA route (not quite clear here & probably context-dependent) to challenge if the facilities are not genuinely single-sex.

Almost the worst thing about OP’s and Lord Sumption’s analysis, is that they imagine these things are unimportant.

This ruling is not sufficient to guarantee women’s single-sex facilities, but it a very necessary step along the way. We are not finished, but we have made a very good start

I’m using the universal definition of male as someone who has a Y chromosome and produces small gametes - sperm

if Prof Winston says anything to the contrary to this then I have not seen it - all other discussions from him point to the production of small gametes and a Y chromosome.

Give it up OP. Pretty much everyone thinks trans women are men, and the law now has been shown to agree. Focus energy on representing those men and making sure they are not discriminated against for being non gender conforning men.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle, reality has prevailed. Humans are one of 2 sexes and that can't be changed. Most people really don't care what they wear or look like, just stay out of women's single sex spaces.

It’s actually fairly simple to understand the key principles of it it you open your mind an iota

You’ve got it all wrong I’m sorry you’ve invested so much in trying to understand something but you just don’t. You don’t get it. Things will change. It’ll take time. I call it post Covid psychosis.

I'm the first to admit that I don't have any legal background and don't have a huge understanding of what's gone on.

However, I hope this helps to protect female spaces. I go to a swimming pool and there is a trans woman who swims there. She comes across as lovely, however she changes in the female changing room, and still has a penis. It is communal changing and makes me and others feel incredibly uncomfortable. I find myself not going in the morning because that's when she swims. There are children and school groups who use the changing rooms too.

I hope that this ruling doesn't prevent these people from having spaces to use - rather that that are DEDICATED spaces exactly for them, so they have somewhere safe without taking the safety of someone else.

If this is the world we now live in, it needs to adapt.

There would be no need to label them trans changing etc - just unisex. So anyone can use them with no worries whatsoever.

OP-If you can't define woman how can you even contemplate using the word trans woman?

Open my mind so much that my brain falls out? I'll just be inspired by your example, thank you.