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).

My sister in law wasn’t registered at birth, does that means she’s not a woman?

To follow this through

If your daughter had a male sports teacher who transitioned to a female would you be OK with him in the girls changing rooms at school?

And you are not interpreting anything correctly at all. It’s been explained to you repeatedly, it’s UK law, not Stonewall law, or the feeling in men’s heads law, or any other nonsense you want to spout. Men are not women and no amount of stamping your feet and wilful misinterpretation will change that.

A trans woman is a man.
They can dress up, wear makeup , chop off appendages - they can have all of the treatments they like. They are still a man masquerading as a woman.
Sickening really.

I agree you can't change sex.

A lot of people here not understanding the ruling or their own definition of women here. You can have this opinion but it's not correct by UK law. In the same way you might also believe in the great spaghetti monster in the sky.

Yes, quite. It's only about transwomen because transwomen are males and this is a Mens Rights Movement. It's telling even that the titled of the is thread is "Trans women are still women". Not Trans men are still men.

It's only ever "Transwomen are women". Only that. Because the authors are Male Supremacists, MRAs and incels.

No but out of morbid curiosity I did read the India Willoughby piece the other day talking about the ruling and according to them they are and have always been a woman. Which is somewhat baffling when they spend a good half of their life as a man named Jonathan.

Bloody loving watching JKR constantly and calming refuting the crap she is spouting on X. She's a better woman than me (JK not India obviously, cause India isn't and never has been nor will be a woman).

Sorry if I’m repeating others here, but I just want to go back to this because it appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the ruling,

The only way a trans identified man can claim discrimination under the act “as a woman” is if he has been treated less favourably than another man would have been because the person or organisation in question perceived him as a woman, in the same way that an actual woman would have been.

So if an employer thinks a trans identified man is actually a woman and pays him less or gives him less favourable working conditions than a man would have because they think that, the trans identified man is the victim of unlawful discrimination - in the same way that someone who is not actually gay can nonetheless legally be the victim of homophobia if the discrimination arises because they are perceived to be gay.

But what a trans identified man can’t do is claim discrimination for being treated as a man and excluded - along with all other men - when it comes to legally single sex, women only spaces, services and sports.

Because legally, he is a man, not a woman.

From now on, things that advertise themselves as “women only” will need to be genuinely single sex; if they want to include people of both sexes they’ll have to be clear that they’re a mixed sex space/service.

And if there’s a parallel space/service offered to men only, but no women only one, that’s discrimination against women.

TIM commit sexual offences at a much higher rate than men in general, there is Home Office data that confirms this. TIM’s are not some harmless subset of women, they are men, and the law has just clarified this.

Two or more things can be doable at the same time, ALL men can stay out of our spaces AND we can all continue to make life better for women in general, you don’t have to choose one or the other.

I can't see India Willoughby's name without fondly remembering that time India was in the BB house and someone thought the IW abbreviation was for Ian Woosnam... and that he was then trending...man it was funny, 😎

I think we should find a different word to 'transition'.

Transition isn' t accurate. Before it was used in a gender context, it meant moving from one place to another, or a period of change.

Since men cannot be women, nor women become men, no matter how they dress or have surgery, they will never 'transition' . (Other than the very rare cases where someone is born with indeterminate genitalia and where surgery is used .)

Most men/women who are 'trans' are living as the old definition as a transvestite- wearing the apparel of the opposite sex. Whether they do it all of the time, or in private, or occasionally, and even if they change their name, have surgery and take drugs, they will never become the other sex.

@AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta

there's a serious shortage of cope.

I propose "pretend."

But if the knitting group was a group of women some or all of whom were Muslim or Jewish women who would not be able to join the group for cultural and religious reasons, or who were a group of breastfeeding mothers who preferred not to breastfeed in front of men, or were rape survivors whose participation in the knitting group was part of their recovery therapy, then it would be wholly appropriate to exclude all men however they identified themselves. I am not sure what the position would be if the knitting group was comprised of lesbians who had decided that they only wanted women in the group, I suppose it would then depend possibly on where the group met, a public place might be tricky to defend, but a private home I think would be different. I can’t see that any distinction could be made as to whether the men asking for admission were men or transwomen, both groups are biologically male.

I expect there will be lots of challenges ahead, some more successful than others, others will be seen as what they are likely to be frivolous, spiteful, manipulative and entitled.

Well done, OP. You have, either deliberately (through malice) or accidentally (through ignorance or stupidity), completely misrepresented the ruling of the Supreme Court.

I suggest you go away and read the judgement for yourself and come back when you've understood it.

Undoubtedly, but reasonableness or the interpretation of a reasonable man/woman is the basis of the English common law legal system, and has been in one form or other since before the Norman conquest. It allows for evolution with society over time. Think of it as grassroots up, whereas the Napoleonic or Roman law system is top-down. It has served us pretty well until fairly recently, when more top-down authoritarian styles of imposing edicts have become increasingly popular.

The ruling has clarified that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (UK law), the term women means biological women. If you believe otherwise, can you explain why?

Er, no. The ruling was that transwomen are not women. That is not what your header says. Again, you are, as always, lying.

It always makes me wonder why so many people are more concerned about the desires of a small group of men (many AGP fetishists) than the safety of women.

Nobody pushing for transwomen to be in female spaces EVER answers this.

I have asked this over and over and over again, across multiple threads, for years. Nobody has ever answered and explained why they think men’s feelings should be prioritised over women’s safety.

Maybe @Lostcat will buck the trend and answer that?

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.

The same definition of sex for humans as we use for other animals and plants is biologically and legally robust enough.

It only because "ideological simplism and creates arbitrary injustices" when we try to create an entirely separate system to sex people because human-made systems - including gender systems - are by their very nature flawed with ideologically simple and injust frameworks to try to create and enforce a social order of expectation, norms, and rules that some don't want.

Also, any definition of sex where you're using hormones as a definer is just going to end up telling people like me you want to remove our sex, which has long been done to disabled people to dehumanise us.

That's a big part of why many intersex advocacy groups have been asked to be left out of these sex v gender discussions for many years. The entire complexity argument excludes and denies more people either sex than it includes anyone.

Just as an addenda to this, Sumption is correct that there is no legal obligation to offer single sex provision.

Something many of us feel should be rectified.

But this week’s judgment does mean that we won’t see a repeat of the recent “women’s” pool competition, in which the two finalists were both men.

If something is advertised as being for women - and sporting events can legitimately be single sex under the EA exceptions - it must be reserved for women, and all men excluded.

I actually had no idea that was the case and I consider myself clued up.

Cherry picking - I want the rights conferred on me by this legislation by virture of agreeing I am a different gender - but also keep my rights as a male.

It’s not all or nothing. Pretty disturbing when you think about it. I want what you have and have what I have. Total disregard for their community in fellow ‘trans men’.

The Great Pretenders?

I'm old enough to know when transvestites were called that. I even walked past Quentin Crisp once in the street.

People like him were tolerated. If he wanted to dress as a woman- fine- harmless variation of the 'norm'.

They didn't want to inhabit safe spaces for women and use their camouflage to infiltrate spaces where women should feel safe and then rape them.

‘Trans men or women take hormones corresponding to the gender they identify with, undergo surgeries that give them the sexual characteristics of the gender they identify with so for me, once they pass as the gender they identify with, they are that gender. Because sex and gender aren't actually that simple.’

You are confusing sex with gender. Gender is a social construct that bears no relation to biology, and as has been clarified this week, has no basis in law. You may as well say you’re a chicken or an anteater as say you’re a TW or a TM because none of it is true.

The definition of sex is VERY simple, there are two, men and women, and you’re either one or the other. This cannot be changed, despite surgery, hormones, wishes, wants, or dreams. It is immutable and binary.

YOU may accept it when people tell you they have changed their sex, the law however, does not. And neither do the majority of women who want ALL men to stay out of our spaces.