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).

Wrong 👎

An employer does have to provide separate toilets for women and men employees, that comes under the health and safety at work laws not the Equality Act, and hasn't been changed by this ruling. Your employer was already clearly breaking the law by allowing what you describe.

A transperson who insists their employer prove they're not entitled to use the facilities of the opposite sex can simply be shown the H&S law. A woman doesn't (shouldn't) need to make a complaint to the employer because what the employer was allowing was already explicitly against the law even before Wednesday.

However, this ruling may help because a lot of employers have been told, and believed, that 'Stonewall law', ie that it's illegal to stop transpeople from using the facilities they want, was the law. It never was, and the publicity over Wednesday should help make that clear to everyone.

When I was a child, I had all my holidays with my grandparents in Wales. I adored Wales and desperately wanted to be Welsh. I was born in Plymouth, which I was very disappointed about.
At school, I told people I was Welsh.
Unfortunately, calling myself Welsh didn’t mean I was, or could ever be Welsh. It didn’t make me feel better either. It hurt not being what I wanted to be.
So that’s why I do sympathise with transgender people. It must be awful being a sex you don’t want to be, just as it’s awful being a nationality you don’t want to be. You are stuck with it for all of your life.

Even babies and dogs can distinguish between male and female human sex but not a tiny group of mostly western progressives from 2010 onwards. They want to gaslight the rest of the world but kindness and tolerance of delusions can only extend thus far. I started with a kind and tolerant TWAW 12 years ago but then I had an awakening when I watched them attack women, lesbians first and then target vulnerable children. The indefatigable, inchoate, entitled male rage just kept coming through loud and clear. It is clear in this thread too.

@Ilikeadrink14 At school, I told people I was Welsh. Unfortunately, calling myself Welsh didn’t mean I was, or could ever be Welsh.

You didn't happen to take part in the most recent series of The Traitors did you?!

I think all of us started with kindness and tolerance at first. And then watched as TWA took a mile.

Oh yes!

Do not do that @Bogginsthe3rd, this is a hugely important issue, for all concerned.

Reducing debate to insults does not advance, nor clarify your viewpoint.

I knew you, or someone who thinks like you, would come out with such a pointless comment!

Someone on my town’s reddit is shrieking that they’re a woman and they know they’re a woman because they have a “V card”. Wtf is a v card! 😆. He’s very worried if he ever gets sent to prison he’ll be stuck in a men’s prison with all the rapists! Eh, hello?

someone asked him about Isla whatshisface and he claims Isla isn’t trans, was never trans, Isla made the whole thing up and was prepared to take hormones as he knew they’re don’t do anything for the first year (?) because he was a nasty man who wanted to go to a women’s prison. Someone has pointed out that that’s the issue, any man could be a nasty man who makes it up and how are women supposed to know the difference. He started shrieking about his V card again and he’s seen a medically qualified person who diagnosed him and therefore he got his v card. He’s so think he’s nearly funny. I’m sure Isla must have seen a doctor to get hormones!

No, and I don’t watch it either. What were you referring to?

Would you acknowledge that if you hadn't noticed a transwoman was a transwoman then you wouldn't be able to list them as examples of you knowing when you had spotted a trans woman confidently ?

There was a transwoman who claimed she was Welsh but it was just an accent put on

Oh sorry. There was a lady on there who spoke with a fake Welsh accent throughout the whole thing because she thought it made her seem more trustworthy.

This is the bit I find tricky. Im part of a singing group that includes ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ and there’s a transwoman in the group. She came out when she joined although it was not surprising and would’ve been even less so when she started singing.

I can see why she wants to socialise with women and build friendships with us. I don’t see any safety issues with her being there or any reason to
exclude her. As far as I know no one in the group has an issue with her being there although it’s possible they do and don’t want to say anything. It’s also possible women have left for that reason and not said why. But either way, the people who regularly go now are people who are prepared to accept her in the group.

As I understand it, this ruling means that we could ask her to leave if we wanted to, but that if we choose not to we have to include any other men if they want to join too. Anyone who is uncomfortable is free to set up their women only singing group and advertise it as such but she can never be part of one, even with people who
aren’t uncomfortable with her being there.

Am I right or is there something I’m missing?

I don’t think any women’s group should be forced to accept men including men who identify as women. There are definitely times when I want a single sex spaces to be protected. But there are other time when I want transwomen to be included without other men having rights to our space and now it feels like there’s no way to achieve that.

Maybe that needs to be part of the campaign for third spaces which (hopefully) trans rights groups are about to embark upon.

Silly woman! I’m not that pathetic. No, I don’t put an accent on. However, when I was small, I always (unintentionally) developed a Welsh accent when I was actually in Wales. I had no idea I was doing it but when it was remarked on, I remember wishing it would carry on once I got back to England, but it never did!

The law has clarified that trans women are biologically male and therefore not entitled to women's single sex provisions. The Supreme Court has ruled that that sex based exclusion of men in women-only spaces is both lawful and justified. It has also made clear that trans women cannot claim to be lesbians to strongarm their way into lesbian fora. The court has observed that people are sexually orientated towards biological , not certificated sex.

Allowing a self-selecting group of men into women's spaces would be discriminatory against the rest of the men who are kept out as a result of their sex.
The court has stated that the word woman refers only to biological women -- there is no other kind. In practice, this prohibits trans women from accessing women's facilities because they do not meet the criteria for what a woman is.

Trans women do not continue to be women because they never were. The court has categorically endorsed the view that sex is biological, binary and immutable.

You're wrong. This same example has been debunked already on the thread.

The court said that a transwoman who was mistaken for a woman and not given something because it was thought he was a woman, cpuld claim for sex discrimination - eg a job application rejected because it said name Jane Smith and the employer didn't want to employ a woman. It's called 'perceptive discrimination '. The court absolutely did not say that made a transwoman a woman, they were very clear that in the Equality Act, a transwoman is a man. They said that multiple times.

If someone discriminated against a straight man because they thought he was gay, it wouldn't make him gay. If someone discriminated against a 50 year old because they thought she was 90, it wouldnt make her 90. If someone discriminated against a white man called Abdullah Hussain because they thought he was Pakistani, it wouldn't make him Pakistani. Do I need to go on?

The judgement has been published, anyone can read it and see what it says.

I think the key takeaway is that the term “woman” does not need “cis” as it does and always should mean woman.

Transmen and transwomen have not changed sex but should not be discriminated against.

A transwoman is a man who dearly wishes he was a woman and a transman a woman who dearly wishes they were a man. So transwomen can and never will be a kind of woman, they are a kind of man and deserve to live in peace and make peace with that.

Everyone cal dress how they please unless indecent and do the jobs the are qualified for.

In other words just like it was before all this pushing into sport/jail/hospital wards etc started.

Interestingly Mark Watson, a comedian from Bristol, put on a Welsh accent for the first part of his career. Part of being someone else on stage/ more interesting but he then had to suddenly stop being Welsh at one point to much derision.

I’m really confused about all the mentions of gender reassignment.

Does this mean a trans woman who has had surgery is allowed in single sex spaces for women or not, I’m so confused?

Eastern Europe was my guess. For some reason I thought Poland

Eh? What is that supposed to mean? Is it one of those philosophical conundrums like "If a tree falls in a forest and no one us around to hear it, does it really make a sound?"

The impression I got about Bogginsthe3rd has just been confirmed! 🫢

Well yes you make my point exactly. It's impossible for you to confidently say you always know when a transwoman is a transwoman because if you had been mistaken, you would never have been aware of your mistake.